Talk:1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Question about August 17 2023 Edit

Politixsperson can you please explain why these details were deleted?

"On the evening of 2 June, a PAP jeep ran onto a sidewalk, civilians, killing three pedestrians and injuring a fourth. This incident sparked fear that the army and the police were trying to advance into Tiananmen Square. Student leaders issued emergency orders to set up roadblocks at major intersections to prevent the entry of troops into the center of the city.

On the morning of 3 June, students and citizens intercepted and questioned a busload of plainclothed soldiers at Xinjiekou. Isolated pockets of soldiers were similarly surrounded and interrogated.↵The soldiers were beaten by the crowd, as were Beijing security personnel who attempted to aid the soldiers. Some of the soldiers were kidnapped when they attempted to head for the hospital. Several other buses carrying weapons, gear, and supplies were intercepted and boarded around Tiananmen.

At 1 pm, a crowd intercepted one of these buses at Liubukou, and several men raised military helmets on bayonets to show the rest of the crowd. ↵At 2:30 pm, a clash broke out between protesters and police. The police attempted to disperse the crowd with tear gas, but demonstrators counterattacked and threw rocks, forcing them to retreat inside the Zhongnanhai compound through the west gate.

At 5:30 pm, several thousand troops awaiting orders began to retreat from the Great Hall of the People. That evening, the government leaders continued to monitor the situation." Atinoua (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Well because that is not what the original source said. Also, I found other sources which were saying different things. Politixsperson (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The original source does say describe this on page 367. Can you show the other sources which were saying different things? Atinoua (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Quite a few of the inline citations even quite clearly provide quotes in addition to the page number containing the relevant material. ADifferentMan (talk) 03:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Then please provide the quotation verbatim. Because what we have now is a summary of what the source says and in my opinion a distorted one at that. Politixsperson (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

If you can't explain what exactly you find "distorted" about the summary of the sources, this is going nowhere. ADifferentMan (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a lot of distortion going on here. To give you just one example - one of the sources used for the isolated section of the second paragraph is the Heavenly Peace documentary, but the documentary does not say that the soldiers were in isolated pockets or that they were surrounded and interrogated. Quite the opposite in fact - it says "So the soldiers sat down, and everyone started to sing" Politixsperson (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

You clearly didn't read the rest of your own source, let alone the other source cited.

From the documentary:

When day came, crowds had stopped busses being used to transport weapons into the city and were ejecting the soldiers. Troops stationed in the nearby Great Hall of the People were ordered out to retake the busses. They too were surrounded and stopped.

The Tiananmen Papers, p. 483:

Troops approaching Tiananmen from the south were stopped when citizens surrounded twenty-one army trucks and asked the soldiers questions about their units, their objectives, and their weapons; the soldiers did not reply.

Maybe you should try reading the existing sources before senselessly claiming "distortion". It's not our job to spoon-feed it to you.

ADifferentMan (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Neither source use the word interrogated. The documentary says they were stopped while the Tiananmen Papers says they were questioned. Also, neither source use the word isolated to describe the state in which the soldiers were found. You say I should try reading the existing sources before senselessly claiming "distortion." Maybe you should practice what you preach first! Politixsperson (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

From the same page:

All along the route from Jianguomen to Dongdan, east of Tiananmen Square, citizens and students surrounded and isolated small groups of soldiers.

This is at the beginning of the same paragraph as the excerpt above this one. Either you didn't bother reading the page, or you're deliberately being obtuse. ADifferentMan (talk) 06:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I "didn't bother reading the page" because, as I said to another user, I do not have the book with me although I am trying my best to get it. (Allow me to clarify: when I said "Also, neither source use the word isolated to describe the state in which the soldiers were found." I was referring to your presentation of the sources) As for being obtuse, you could have answered my "isolated" objection from the get go if you did not play around and waste time with your replies as if they were Matryoshka dolls.

Based on what you are telling me and the transcript of the documentary, neither source use the word interrogated and only the Tiananmen Papers one uses the word isolated. So it looks like the language will have to be adjusted. Politixsperson (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

If you don't have the source we're discussing, don't make claims about said source supposedly not containing certain keywords, or claiming certain info from a source you haven't even read is "distorted". ADifferentMan (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I can because I am not making my claims in reference to the Tiananmen Papers source itself. Don't comment and waste time if you don't plan on reading what I am saying. Politixsperson (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You very much did. Above, you claimed, despite supposedly not reading the source:

Well because that is not what the original source said.

ADifferentMan (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I did not. I said that because I was only referring to the documentary and text cited to it. That is why the word source uses the singular and not plural grammatical number. Politixsperson (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is the quote that supports the original text on page 367: @Politixsperson

"All along the route from Jianguomen to Dongdan, east of Tiananmen Square, citizens and students surrounded and isolated small groups of soldiers. Some threw rocks. On the Jianguomen overpass citizens demanded to know why soldiers were opposing the people. Half a dozen soldiers were stripped of their shirts. Troops approaching Tiananmen from the south were stopped when citizens surrounded twenty-one army trucks and asked the soldiers questions about their units, their objectives, and their weapons; the soldiers did not reply. Most of the soldiers in this army had, according to reports, been separated from their units during the advance. They were beaten when they went to get their ammunition, and some of the wounded soldiers were kidnapped when they headed for the hospital. Beijing security personnel were beaten when they went to aid the soldiers. The ground along the way was littered with crushed provisions.

At the Xidan intersection just west of Tiananmen, dozens of soldiers sat behind closed windows in a bus that had been surrounded since midnight; citizens vented their anger by banging on the windows, cursing, and spitting. Near the Capital Theater three buses were surrounded, and the air was let out of their tires. Students boarded a bus that was carrying military gear and supplies, found guns, and displayed the guns on top of the bus. Just west of the Xinhua Gate of Zhongnanhai, the air was released from the tires of four buses carrying soldiers in civilian clothes.

Around 1 P.M. a bus filled with munitions was stopped at Liubukou (at the southwest corner of Zhongnanhai) and surrounded by several thousand people. Young men who looked like students climbed atop the bus, flashed the "V-for-victory" sign, and raised military helmets on the tips of bayonets to show the crowd. Armed police and public security personnel tried in vain to disperse the crowd. Down the street, at Xinhua Gate, a wall of PLA soldiers blocked students and citizens to prevent them from entering. At 2:30 PM. several hundred armed policemen and public security personnel fired tear gas into the crowd of protesters, forcing them to scurry for cover. But the demonstrators counterattacked, and the police had to withdraw into Zhongnanhai through the West Gate, which they closed behind them. The demonstrators outside the gate threw rocks. Large crowds converged at the Great Hall of the People, at the Radio, Film, and Television Ministry, and the CCP Propaganda Department." Atinoua (talk) 13:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

In the article, the sentence "At 1 pm, a crowd intercepted one of these buses at Liubukou, and several men raised military helmets on bayonets to show the rest of the crowd." is cited to page 484. The sentence "At 2:30 pm, a clash broke out between protesters and police." is cited to page 482. Neither are from page 367. Please clarify Politixsperson (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, both of these things are found on page 367. Someone must have accidentally quoted the wrong page number. Thank you for pointing out the mistake:

Around 1 P.M. a bus filled with munitions was stopped at Liubukou (at the southwest corner of Zhongnanhai) and surrounded by several thousand people. Young men who looked like students climbed atop the bus, flashed the "V-for-victory" sign, and raised military helmets on the tips of bayonets to show the crowd. Armed police and public security personnel tried in vain to disperse the crowd. Down the street, at Xinhua Gate, a wall of PLA soldiers blocked students and citizens to prevent them from entering. At 2:30 PM. several hundred armed policemen and public security personnel fired tear gas into the crowd of protesters, forcing them to scurry for cover. But the demonstrators counterattacked, and the police had to withdraw into Zhongnanhai through the West Gate, which they closed behind them. The demonstrators outside the gate threw rocks. Large crowds converged at the Great Hall of the People, at the Radio, Film, and Television Ministry, and the CCP Propaganda Department. Atinoua (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Atinoua Thanks for this. Out of curiosity as to why those three pages were cited, can you give me the full text from pages 482-484? I do not have it with me at the moment although I am trying my best to get the book. Politixsperson (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Those pages are part of a list of biographies of people involved in the protests. It's unrelated. I'm assuming an editor made an honest mistake or there was a glitch in the automatic citation tool. Atinoua (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you clarify if what is in those three pages support the citations in these two paragraphs?

On the morning of 3 June, students and citizens intercepted and questioned a busload of plainclothed soldiers at Xinjiekou. Isolated pockets of soldiers were similarly surrounded and interrogated. (p.483) The soldiers were beaten by the crowd, as were Beijing security personnel who attempted to aid the soldiers. Some of the soldiers were kidnapped when they attempted to head for the hospital. (p.482) Several other buses carrying weapons, gear, and supplies were intercepted and boarded around Tiananmen. (p.482)

At 5:30 pm, several thousand troops awaiting orders began to retreat from the Great Hall of the People. (p.484) Politixsperson (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

There may be different versions of the book where pages don't line up. In the copy that I have, all of the information in those 2 paragraphs on page 367, not 482-484. Atinoua (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you give the full text from your source that discusses those two paragraphs? If all the information related to those two paragraphs fits on just one page of your book, then it is strange how the same information could be so spread out in another version of the book. (Given the structured way in the which the citations are made, I agree with your conjecture that there is another version of the book) The discrepancy in the page citations leads me to believe relevant and important information is being suppressed. Politixsperson (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding! I now understand what you were asking. My guess is that the font size is larger in the other text which would explain why it takes up more pages and also why it's on page 482-484 instead of the earlier 367. On pages 366-368 there is the section titled "The Gathering Storm". The full text of this section is this:

"Reports on June 3 from the State Security and Public Security Ministries described a violent reaction by the citizens against what seemed to be efforts by martial law troops to sneak into the city in plainclothes.

The reaction was triggered by an accident that began around 11 P.M. on the night of June 2. A Mitsubishi jeep belonging to the People's Armed Police ran onto a sidewalk at Muxidi, killing three pedestrians and seriously injuring one. Despite the late hour, five hundred or six hundred people quickly gathered. Police cordoned off the area and sent the dead and injured to a nearby hospital. The crowd's suspicions were aroused because the police took the perpetrators away without conducting an investigation and because the jeep had no license plates. People started to say the martial law troops were infiltrating the city in plainclothes. Some in the crowd forced their way past the police to search the jeep. They emerged with military uniforms, maps, and mobile tele- phones, which confirmed their suspicions.

Word spread quickly. Between midnight and 1 A.M. on June 3 the AFS, the AFW, and students groups at Peking University, People's University, and Beijing Normal University issued emergency broadcasts over the loudspeaker systems. They said large contingents of armed troops were entering the city and pressing toward the Square. They said that the troops were traveling in military and civilian vehicles and on foot-some in uniform and armed with rifles, others in plain- clothes and carrying knives, metal clubs, and shovels-and that students, teachers, and citizens should mobilize to set up roadblocks.

Groups of students and citizens quickly converged on dozens of major intersections. In the hours around dawn, throughout Beijing, army vehicles were blocked or overturned, tires were punctured, and approximately five hundred soldiers were surrounded in pockets. Thousands of college students rode their bicycles in a protest on Chang'an Boulevard. At approximately 5 A.M. the Voice of the Movement public-address system in the Square announced, "We have won! Look, the students and the local citizens are united!" At 6:15 A.M. Sixty college students showed off helmets and boots they had confiscated from troops.

Later in the morning an electric bus lodged sideways across a road at Xinjiekou blocked a southbound bus filled with dozens of soldiers who were out of uniform. In the face of the angry crowd, they did not dare get off the bus.

All along the route from Jianguomen to Dongdan, east of Tiananmen Square, citizens and students surrounded and isolated small groups of soldiers. Some threw rocks. On the Jianguomen overpass citizens demanded to know why soldiers were opposing the people. Half a dozen soldiers were stripped of their shirts. Troops approaching Tiananmen from the south were stopped when citizens surrounded twenty-one army trucks and asked the soldiers questions about their units, their objectives, and their weapons; the soldiers did not reply. Most of the soldiers in this army had, according to reports, been separated from their units during the advance. They were beaten when they went to get their ammunition, and some of the wounded soldiers were kid- napped when they headed for the hospital. Beijing security personnel were beaten when they went to aid the soldiers. The ground along the way was littered with crushed provisions.

At the Xidan intersection just west of Tiananmen, dozens of soldiers sat behind closed windows in a bus that had been surrounded since midnight; citizens vented their anger by banging on the windows, cursing, and spitting. Near the Capital Theater three buses were surrounded, and the air was let out of their tires. Students boarded a bus that was carrying military gear and supplies, found guns, and displayed the guns on top of the bus. Just west of the Xinhua Gate of Zhongnanhai, the air was released from the tires of four buses carrying soldiers in civilian clothes.

Around 1 PM. a bus filled with munitions was stopped at Liubukou (at the southwest corner of Zhongnanhai) and surrounded by several thousand people. Young men who looked like students climbed atop the bus, flashed the "V-for-victory" sign, and raised military helmets on the tips of bayonets to show the crowd. Armed police and public security personnel tried in vain to disperse the crowd. Down the street, at Xinhua Gate, a wall of PLA soldiers blocked students and citizens to prevent them from entering. At 2:30 PM. several hundred armed policemen and public security personnel fired tear gas into the crowd of protesters, forcing them to scurry for cover. But the demonstrators counterattacked, and the police had to withdraw into Zhongnanhai through the West Gate, which they closed behind them. The demonstrators outside the gate threw rocks. Large crowds converged at the Great Hall of the People, at the Radio, Film, and Television Ministry, and the CCP Propaganda Department.

About 5 P.M. the Tiananmen command center of the AFW began supplying students and citizens with "self-defense weapons" including cleavers, clubs, steel chains, and sharpened bamboo poles. The AFW amassed more than a thousand people to knock down a wall at a construction site near Xidan, where they picked up bricks and steel beams for use in counterattack.

Around 5:30 PM. three thousand martial law officers and soldiers who were awaiting orders began a retreat from the Great Hall of the People, eliciting applause from students and citizens. At 6 P.M. a crowd that gathered in Chang'an Boulevard was so thick that cyclists had to dismount. People brought their children out to witness the extraordinary event.

Throughout the day organized teams of demonstrators and scattered groups of students and citizens filled the Square and the length of Chang'an Boulevard, bringing traffic to a halt. Toward evening the atmosphere grew increasingly tense, with loudspeakers in the Square broadcasting reports of new clashes between police and citizens."

Sorry again for the miscommunication. Atinoua (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very very much for this. Just as I suspected, the current version suppressed relevant and important information.

I have one final question. The sentence "At about 10:30 p.m., still being pummeled by rocks thrown by protesters, the 38th Army troops opened fire." is sourced to page 491. Can you give the full text of the page from your source that discusses this? Politixsperson (talk) 01:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

What information exactly was suppressed?

For your question, the source of that quote for me is on page 373, not 491. The section is titled "Pitched battle at Muxidi" and a brief description about the location of Muxidi. It also mentions that most of the deaths occured here (as opposed to being in the square itself).

"Advance troops of the Thirty-Eighth Group Army, who were responsible for the western approaches, massed in the western suburbs at Wanshou Road, Fengtai, and Liangxiang. At 9:30P.M. these troops began advancing eastward toward the Square and encountered their first obstacle at Gongzhufen, where students and citizens had set up a blockade. An antiriot squad fired tear gas canisters and rubber bullets into the crowd. At first the people retreated, but then they stopped. The antiriot squad pressed forward, firing more tear gas and more rubber bullets. Again the crowd retreated but soon stopped. The troops kept firing warning shots into the air, but the people displayed no signs of fear. The stretch from Gongzhufen to the Military Museum, Beifengwo Street, and Muxidi is less than two kilometers, but troop advance was slow because of citizens' interference. The crowd threw rocks, soda bottles, and other things, but troops maintained strict discipline and did not fire a single shot in return.

Believing the troops would not use live ammunition, the citizens grew increasingly bold. At 10:10 P.M. tens of thousands formed a human wall at Beifengwo Street to block the troops; the two sides faced each other over a distance of twenty to thirty meters. Some of the citizens continued throwing rocks and other objects. Using an electric bullhorn, the commanding officer exhorted the citizens and students to disperse and let the troops pass. When that measure failed, he decided to use force to assure his soldiers could reach their positions on time. Infantrymen led the way, firing into the air. Then the soldiers-with the first two rows in a kneeling position and those in back standing-pointed their weapons at the crowd. Approximately 10:30 P.M., under a barrage of rocks, the troops opened fire. Sparks flew from ricocheting bullets. When people in the crowd realized that live ammunition was in use, they surged in waves toward the Muxidi Bridge. Their retreat was hindered by roadblocks they had set up, and for this reason some in the crowd were trampled and badly injured." (372-373)

Is this what you're looking for? Atinoua (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

"What information exactly was suppressed?" - There's a bit but the most glaring ones were the part about the protesters suspecting infilitration by the PLA/PAP and the police not doing their investigation properly.

"Is this what you're looking for?" - yes. Many thanks Politixsperson (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

This information isn't being suppressed, it is written in the paragraph above: "This incident sparked fear that the army and the police were trying to advance into Tiananmen Square." But are you arguing that the suspicion because "the police took the perpetrators away without conducting an investigation and because the jeep had no license plates" is what prompted them to throw rocks? I don't fully understand what your point is here. Atinoua (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Not throwing rocks, but their reaction. The book says the protesters reacted violently after their suspicions about infilitration and a lot of information (some of it explicit) which makes or support this point is not included in the article, which upsets its neutrality. Without it, the text makes it look as if the soldiers were attacked by the protesters without reason. The police investigation and jeep license plate part is one example, but there are others. There is the part about how the violent reaction by the citizens was triggered by "efforts by martial law troops to sneak into the city in plainclothes." (the quoted part is missing) There is the part about how the crowd suspicion of infilitration was confirmed when they "emerged with military uniforms, maps, and mobile tele- phones" . (the quoted part is missing) There is the part about how the soldiers were beaten when they "went to get their ammunition" (the quoted part is missing). There is the part about how one of the officers "decided to use force to assure his soldiers could reach their positions on time." (the quoted part is missing) I will add this information in if you have no objections. Politixsperson (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I see your point. What change do you suggest here? Atinoua (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Having all quoted parts included in the article Politixsperson (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course, I am just wondering how specifically you suggest it be presented. Atinoua (talk) 13:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The way it is currently presented in the article Politixsperson (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

So are you writing that you agree with the way the current article is written? What is the purpose of this? Atinoua (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"What is the purpose of this?" Well to inform you of the reasoning for my changes. You did not seem to have any objections, so I added the information in. Politixsperson (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay I see the changes now. Good job. Atinoua (talk) 13:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

reactions

the sentence "The Chinese government's response was widely denounced by Western governments and media." is not and could not have been be found in the source. Could not because the INR report says the response was condemned nearly universally ("Foreign governments have expressed near universal revulsion over the crackdown") and cites a number of examples from the non West to support that argument. Some examples include the Soviet Union (p 3, 12), Hungary (p 3, 12) and the press in the "Third World" (p 4, 13-15). I will remove this if there are no objections. Politixsperson (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Is your point that China's response was not denounced by the West, say, the United States? Many sources in our article are media in the west and denounce China's response. Also, please allow for more time for people to reply before making the change. Atinoua (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

No i am saying that source does not say "The Chinese government's response was widely denounced by Western governments and media." Politixsperson (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources in our article that show western governments and media denouncing China's response. There's even an article about it. I don't yet understand why this accurate information was removed. Atinoua (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I am referring specifically to the INR source and the sentence cited to it in the "reactions" section. You cannot find the sentence "The Chinese government's response was widely denounced by Western governments and media." in the INR source for the reasons I already stated. It is not anything general that I am referring to. Politixsperson (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I haven't thoroughly checked the source but if what your saying is true, that doesn't mean that this sentence should be removed. If anything, it means the source should be changed. Why does this information have to be removed? Atinoua (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

"If anything, it means the source should be changed." Then that is something you or someone else will have to do. The information was removed because the information was not saying what the source was saying, violating WP:SYNTH. Politixsperson (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

My point is that the information is still true even though that source may not support it. In order for this text to not violate wp:synth, there would have to be evidence that what China did was denounced by countries in the west and media in the west. This is proven throughout our article and also here. I don't agree with outright deleting this text. Atinoua (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

And my point is that any information you put in needs to be supported by the appropriate source. We can't have a situation where you have information in an article that is supported by a source that says something completely different or supported by no sources at all. The sentence "The Chinese government's response was widely denounced by Western governments and media" used the INR report as the supporting citation despite the INR report saying no such thing, so it was removed. I don't see how you can have such a hard time understand this when it is such an easy issue to understand. Politixsperson (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand your point and I agree that if a source does not say x, then x should not be in our article. However, x is shown throughout our article and there's even an entire page dedicated to x. This is why I don't think x should be deleted from our article. Atinoua (talk) 13:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"However, x is shown throughout our article and there's even an entire page dedicated to x." That is your interpretation of what the sources say and one which others may disagree with. But look, here is the point. If you want the sentence "The Chinese government's response was widely denounced by Western governments and media" back in then you will need to cite it to a source that says that. There is no point for us to keep dragging this discussion out because at this point we are just going around in circles Politixsperson (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we're going in circles and I am sorry if the things I am saying are unproductive. I am trying my best to continue the discussion so that we can come to a consensus and improve our article. I have added the sentence back and simply cited the relevant wikipedia article about it. Atinoua (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I left what you wrote untouched, but expanded on it as per the relevant article. Politixsperson (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good. Thank you! Atinoua (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

25 August 2023 Edit Suggestion

Hello! I am making this suggestion because there is some extremely important information that is mentioned in our article but is being left out of the lead. This suggestion is to add just 1 sentence to the lead that clarifies this important information.

Currently, our article says this: "The Tiananmen Square protests, known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident were student-led demonstrations held in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China, spanning from 15 April to 4 June, 1989."

I would like to add this sentence to go after the previous one, so together they read: "The Tiananmen Square protests, known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident were student-led demonstrations held in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China, spanning from 15 April to 4 June, 1989. These student-led demonstrations initially began as peaceful protests but eventually escalated into calls to overthrow the government."

This change is necessary because it provides a more nuanced and balanced view of these historical events. Nothing in the world is static, and these demonstrations (especially with how chaotic they were) are no exception. By including this sentence, it introduces the complexities and changes the students' ideas over time that are later expanded on in our article. It also emphasizes just how committed the students were to their beliefs. Protesting for your ideals is 1 thing, but calling to overthrow the government (and risk facing the consequences of that) takes their commitment to another level that our lead currently does not address. There is a lot of evidence which proves that this is factually accurate.

Evidence 1. "The April 26 editorial made every student at Beijing University very angry. Until then, we really did not want to overthrow the communist government."

Evidence 2. "As the decade of the 1980s wound to a close and Deng turned eighty four, university students found themselves consumed with passions other than revolutionary fervor. The ideology of Communism had become meaningless. As far as they were concerned, the Party in the 1980s was left with no role except a parasitic one; to protect its members' privileges... With no role for Communism, the role of the party evaporates."

Evidence 3. An unnamed student said this: "Good people must stand up and declare that the Communist party should step down... Like a great tree, the Communist party, when it was young had deep roots and luxuriant foliage and reached up to the heaven...But the leaders are now completely corrupt. The roots of this great tree have rotted, and insects infest not just the roots but the tree itself. It should be removed."

Evidence 4. On 27 May, Student leader Chai Ling, said to a crowd of protestors: "Those who lose the heart of the people will perish! Overthrow the illegal government headed by Li Ping!" This can be found in the film The Gate of Heavenly Peace.

Evidence 5. Continuing in the film, there was an interview with former government official Wu Guoguang, he said this about the party: "I thought the only workable thing was to join up and try to change it [the government]. Committing suicide myself wouldn’t do the country much good. A more useful thing was to help the communist party commit suicide. Lenin taught us that the easiest way to take a fortress was from within. There’s also the Trojan horse from Ancient Greece. If you can’t win from confrontation, you have to try sneaking inside."

Evidence 6. In another interview with writer Dai Qing, she says this: “What a student movement represents is a call for social justice. There are times when we have no choice but to take to the streets, vent our anger, and show our determination to change things. April 27th was such a time. The students did a great job and the government was forced to change its usual behavior. But our ultimate goal is to change the entire system. This cannot be accomplished by students staying in the streets." This interview can also be found in The Gate of Heavenly Peace. Atinoua (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

That is already covered in the second paragraph. Also, we have a section "Reverted Edit August 15 2023" where we are already asking for a third opinion for outstanding issues related to the introduction section. I suggest we wait for that outcome first before proposing any further changes to it. Politixsperson (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't find where this change was found. Can you please point specifically to what you're talking about? And I fully agree with you that we should wait for a resolution for outstanding issues before continuing forward. More improvements are still worth suggesting though. Atinoua (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It was not a change it was information that was already there. “Common grievances at the time included inflation, corruption, limited preparedness of graduates for the new economy, and restrictions on political participation. Although they were highly disorganized and their goals varied, the students called for greater accountability, constitutional due process, democracy, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech." Politixsperson (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. This paragraph is important to describe some of the broad goals of the movement, and it also touches on the disorganization of the movement itself. In addition to this sentence, if we have one that directly mentions the escalation into calls to overthrow the government, then it provides a more balanced perspective of events (previous versions do not include this critical detail) and also helps the reader understand the extent of which the students are committed to their cause. Both sentences are necessary to have a complete understanding of events. Atinoua (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Calls to end Communist Party rule is already part of the student’s call for constitutional due process, democracy, etc. We can make that connection more explicit but using wording like “the escalation into calls to overthrow the government" is not neutral as the word overthrow has the connotation of illegality. Politixsperson (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right that the wording "calls to overthrow the government" implies illegality, but I wouldn't say that means it's not neutral. It could mean that what the students were doing was wrong, but it also could mean that the government policy itself was wrong. Our article doesn't point in either direction. I do agree with you that it's important to present historical facts in a neutral way. If we include the broad goals of the movement (including student’s call for constitutional due process, democracy, etc.) and we also include the escalation to overthrow the government, it provides a more accurate and balanced view of events. Escalation into calls to overthrow the government is not mentioned and the reason it's important for this to be the wording is because it shows how committed the students were to their mission. Also, our article doesn't have emphasis on the powerful drive for change that existed at the time (with reference to the 6 pieces of evidence above) and this change would fix that problem. Atinoua (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

"You're right that the wording "calls to overthrow the government" implies illegality, but I wouldn't say that means it's not neutral." Well if you think wording which implies illegality is still neutral, then you need to get the consensus to include the phrase in the article. I think most people would come to a different conclusion. Politixsperson (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

By not including the critical information about how there were calls to overthrow the government, it hurts the balance of our article by not emphasizing the extent that the students were willing to achieve their goals. Demanding and protesting is powerful, but it doesn't clarify that when they called to overthrow the government, that was illegal. Their strong convictions for revolutionary change must be emphasized in our article. Something being illegal doesn't imply anything about its neutrality. In America, it used to be illegal to teach slaves to read or write. This is something mentioned in the Slavery in the United States article. Does mentioning it was illegal lead you to believe the neutrality of the article is compromised? By not having this information, it would devalue the actions of anyone who attempted to teach slaves to read or write. Their convictions are strong to go against the law. By mentioning something is illegal, it doesn't say either way whether it was wrong or not. I believe any reasonable person would go as far and say that the law was wrong to prohibit slaves to read and write (and also by allowing slavery to exist in the first place). Atinoua (talk) 12:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Your comparison does not work because the goal of abolitionists was to abolish slavery, not overthrow the American government. It also does not work because the American government eventually got around to the goal of abolishing slavery, unlike the Chinese government which to this day actively suppresses any discussion of Tiananmen within its borders. These reasons explain why it does not make sense for the introductory section of the Slavery in the United States article to include the phrase "calls to overthrow the government." Bottom line is you need to get the consensus to include the phrase in the article. But until you do do not put the phrase in the article. Politixsperson (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I need to clarify that I am not comparing the goals of the abolitionists to the goals of the protestors. What I am comparing is how in both instances, they were illegal. The goals themselves don't actually matter in this context. The point is that something being illegal does not necessarily have a negative connotation to it. This is reflected in the Slavery in the US article. That article remains neutral despite saying that teaching slaves to read was illegal.

The sentence "These student-led demonstrations initially began as peaceful protests but eventually escalated into calls to overthrow the government." includes extremely important information to improve the introduction while maintaining a balanced article. This suggestion says nothing about justification or rationale for the crackdown. It says nothing about the crackdowns being a good thing. (I personally do not think they were good, but my personal perspective is irrelevant to the fact that we must present history accurately and neutrally.) It only mentions the nuance of the situation and the extent of the protestors' convictions. Atinoua (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to respond to you any further regarding this issue as we are just going in circles here. Do not put that sentence in before you have got the consensus to do so. I will remove it if you do. Politixsperson (talk) 04:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

My goal is to avoid going in circles. Discussion is the way we build consensus and I want to know specifically what the problem is with this suggestion. With other suggestions that you have made, we have been able to reach a consensus and I would like to continue trying that with this suggestion. I am trying my best to be inclusive with your perspective and not shut you down. I want to improve our article through discussion and building consensus. I want to hear your reasoning.

Right now, all I have is that the sentence violates neutrality because it makes it seem like what the students had said was illegal.

My response was that mentioning something is illegal doesn't violate the neutrality of the article, and I gave an example of an article that remained neutral despite mentioning the illegality of a particular action. There are many more examples too. I mentioned how this suggestion doesn't say anything about whether it being illegal was good or bad and I would bet money that readers would believe that the law was in the wrong, not the students.

I also mentioned how the change would improve the neutrality of the article by emphasizing just how committed the students were to their goals and the extent to which they were willing to go. Our article currently doesn't emphasize this which can make the reader believe that the students were not as interested in change than the extent that they truly were. Even though I personally believe that the government response was not good, my personal perspective does not matter because this information is extremely important for readers to have a more thorough understanding of the students' perspective.

Can you please expand more on why you believe this sentence: "These student-led demonstrations initially began as peaceful protests but eventually escalated into calls to overthrow the government." violates the neutrality of our article?

Atinoua (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

References

August 17 2023

User talk:ADifferentMan: can you explain the specific issues you have with my changes to the article? You claim I have been mass reverting but that does not appear to be the case as most of my edits have been adding new information. Politixsperson (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the quantity of material you have removed, what if I include the information I added without removing any of the information you added? If there are any disagreements we can either solve it on the article itself or if we cannot then take it here to the talk page. It seems like that would be a good way to speed up the process instead of going through each and every single disagreement on the talk page first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politixsperson (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be much more productive to start at the talk page if you believe the edit might be contested. This saves everybody time. Atinoua (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree but ADifferentMan has not responded...Politixsperson (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Your edit history [1] in the article mainspace clearly shows the opposite. ADifferentMan (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Going through the article, there are a few things which I took issue with

The CIA part in the “Funding and Support section” appears to contravene WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

The MSS section seems to contain too much detail.

The paragraph beginning with “On the morning of 3 June...” in the 2-3 June section has some distortion issues as we discussed above. Same with the paragraph beginning with “At 5:30 pm...”

Chai's comments in the "Protesters attack soldiers" section seems like it is given too much prominence.

For the paragraph beginning with “At about 10:30 p.m...” in the “Soldiers attack protesters” the last sentence about expanding bullets doesn't talk about Tiananmen Square.

I will start making adjustments if I don't hear from you Politixsperson (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You're going to need to do a lot more explaining to justify removing sourced content other than your opinion that certain things are given "too much prominence". ADifferentMan (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

There is not really that much more to explain when the issues are so obvious. To give you just one example the CIA funding allegation cites a single article that relies on a bunch of anonymous sources which is in violation of WP:EXCEPTIONAL as it is an “apparently important claim“ (it is important enough to you that it motivated you to put it into the article) which is not covered by multiple mainstream sources. Another would be the part about expanding bullets in the “Soldiers attack protesters” section where the sources do not even talk about the events at Tiananmen. Just because content is sourced does not mean we have to keep it if either the source or content or both are inadmissible. Politixsperson (talk) 09:47, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"Mainstream" is extremely vague and very much open to interpretation, but the article is written by Vancouver Sun, an official Canadian newspaper, not some fringe author. If you think, for whatever reason, that this constitutes an unreliable source, you're free to open a discussion about it here [2]. Otherwise, you have no right to remove properly sourced content. ADifferentMan (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

That is not what I said. I did not say or imply that the Vancouver Sun is an unreliable source. What I said is that you need multiple sources to support your claim as stipulated by WP:EXCEPTIONAL. WP:ONUS says “the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.” You are the person who wants this content included, so the responsibility for obtaining the consensus lies with you, not me. Politixsperson (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You have yet to show how this is, in any way, an exceptional claim. You also might want to read WP:OWN before impulsively removing content on the sole basis that you disagree with it. ADifferentMan (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Well for one, per the criteria set forth under WP:EXCEPTIONAL, it would “significantly alter mainstream assumptions” that the protest movement was organic and that the crackdown was not justified. But I am not going to go any further into this because doing so would be turning WP:ONUS on its head. The responsibility lies with you to show why your content should be included, not with me having to show why your content should be excluded. Gven your edit history on this article, you might want to practice what you preach and read WP:OWN before accusing others of violations that you have no qualms committing. Politixsperson (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Unless you have a source explicitly contradicting what was said in the Vancouver Sun, these are nothing more than your own self-defined standards. Read WP:NPOV again. ADifferentMan (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The responsibility lies with you to show why your content should be included, not with me having to show why your content should be excluded. Don't comment and waste time if you don't plan on following policy Politixsperson (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Politixsperson I stated this below, but I'll state it again: The paragraph was present well before you alone argued it be removed. As such, you are responsible for justifying the removal of content that is reliably sourced, which you have yet to do. ADifferentMan (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is time agnostic. It doesn't matter when the content was written. What matters is who wants the content included. You are the person who wants to material to stay, so the responsibility lies with you to justify keeping the paragraph which you wrote. Politixsperson (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the CIA issue, you have yet to address the other ones I raised. Once more, I will start making adjustments if I don't hear from you Politixsperson (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

What specific changes do you propose? Atinoua (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Having the CIA, MSS and Chai Ling parts go back to the way they were in this version of the article. As with the proposals in the other talk sections, I will make the changes if I do not hear any objections from you Politixsperson (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Just so that we're crystal clear, can you quote what you want to change and then quote what you want to change it to? Atinoua (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Current CIA part

Donations also came from the United States, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, and countries across Europe.[74] The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) maintained a network of informants among the student activists and actively aided them in forming the anti-government movement, providing them various equipment including typewriters and fax machines according to a U.S. official.[75] They, alongside MI6, would later organize the smuggling out of several dissident leaders.[76]

Current MSS part

On the same day, another report, entitled "On ideological and political infiltration into our country from the United States and other international political forces", issued by Ministry of State Security chief Jia Chunwang, was submitted to the party leadership, and likewise sent to every member of the Politburo, as well as to senior Party elders, including Deng Xiaoping, Li Xiannian and Chen Yun. [138]

The report emphasized the danger of infiltration of bourgeois liberalism into China and the negative effect that Western ideological influence, particularly from the United States, had on the students.[139] The MSS had determined that the United States had infiltrated the student movement by various means,[140] including the use of the U.S. government-owned VOA radio station as an instrument of psychological warfare, as well as the cultivation of pro-American ideologies among Chinese students studying abroad as a long-term strategy.[141] It said that American students studying at universities across China "went everywhere fanning the flames" and that American journalists in Beijing maintained close contact with the leaders of the Beijing Students' Autonomous Federation, telling them that "the United States would, if necessary, provide asylum for them or help them go to the United States to study."[142] Furthermore, the report also resolved that U.S. intelligence had made efforts to get close to leaders of several Chinese institutions; According to the report, a CIA agent from the U.S. Embassy had nearly fifty contacts between 1981 and 1988, fifteen of whom were associated with the Economic Restructuring Commission. [143] As with Li's report, the MSS report advocated for immediate military action,[144] and was viewed as providing one of the best justifications for it.[138]

Current Chai Ling part

Unlike more moderate student leaders, Chai Ling seemed willing to allow the student movement to end in a violent confrontation. In an interview given in late May, Chai stated:

What we actually are hoping for is bloodshed, the moment when the government is ready to brazenly butcher the people. Only when the Square is awash with blood will the people of China open their eyes.

— Chai Ling, The Gate of Heavenly Peace

However, she felt that she was unable to convince her fellow students of this. She also claimed that her expectation of a violent crackdown was something she had heard from Li Lu and not an idea of her own.

Proposed CIA part

During the demonstrations, protesters received a significant amount of support from domestic and outside sources. The Chinese University in Hong Kong donated HK$10,000 by early May, and groups such as the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China were founded in support of the protests. Donations also came from the United States, Canada, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, and countries across Europe.

Proposed MSS part

On the same day, another report entitled "On ideological and political infiltration into our country from the United States and other international political forces", was issued by Ministry of State Security chief Jia Chunwang and submitted to the party leadership. Like Li's report, Jia's report advocated for military action and placed responsibility for the protests and the turmoil on the United States. It said that a ranking official of the US Embassy in China had met with the demonstrators "every night for four weeks" and alleged that the US State Department tried to build a counterrevolutionary armed forces in China, citing a May report published by its China Study Group which claimed that the democracy movement in China was part of the world democracy movement. It further said that American students studying at universities across China "went everywhere fanning the flames" and that American journalists in Beijing maintained close contact with the leaders of the Beijing Students' Autonomous Federation, telling them that "the United States would, if necessary, provide asylum for them or help them go to the United States to study."

Proposed Chai Ling part

Unlike more moderate student leaders, Chai Ling seemed willing to allow the student movement to end in a violent confrontation. stating in The Gate of Heavenly Peace that she and her followers were hoping for blooshed as "only when the Square is awash with blood will the people of China open their eyes." However, she felt that she was unable to convince her fellow students of this. She also claimed that her expectation of a violent crackdown was something she had heard from Li Lu and not an idea of her own. Politixsperson (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

1. I definitely see the point you’re making though and I agree that it should be changed. And I think it would be a good idea to include information about the CIA aimed to “stem Soviet influence” by maintaining a network of informants among the student activists and actively aided them in forming the anti-government movement, providing them various equipment including typewriters and fax machines. You’re right that this is just 1 instance, but it would harm the balance of our article by pretending like it doesn’t exist. Our article should reflect the nuances that exist in reality.

2. I think this is a fine change. Good job.

3. I think this is a good change although I would like the full original quote to be in the article. The first sentence is important to provide more context to what she meant.

What we actually are hoping for is bloodshed, the moment when the government is ready to brazenly butcher the people. Only when the Square is awash with blood will the people of China open their eyes.

Thank you for your hard work and commitment to improving our article. I think we should give ADifferentMan (and any other editors) a reasonable amount of time to provide their perspective before making any changes. Atinoua (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"I think we should give ADifferentMan (and any other editors) a reasonable amount of time to provide their perspective before making any changes." Neither of us are under any obligation to work under anybody else’s schedule. We put in the hard work of resolving our differences, not ADifferentMan. As a matter of courtesy I can wait, but how long that wait will be will be up to me to decide, not him.

the CIA information violates WP:EXCEPTIONAL as it would “significantly alter mainstream assumptions” that the protest movement was organic and that the crackdown was not justified. Its inclusion upsets the neutrality of the article. The entire sentence must go. Politixsperson (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it must go and I think it can be improved and I don't think it significantly alters mainstream assumptions. A protest can be organic and at the same time, the CIA can be involved. This sentence also doesn't include anything about justification, just information. Here is my proposal:

"One source claims that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) maintained a network of informants among the student activists and actively aided them in forming the anti-government movement. Activists were given various equipment including typewriters and fax machines according to this source."

This way, the information isn't completely ignored and it's acknowledged that the information is coming from 1 source. What are your thoughts? Atinoua (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

"I don't think it significantly alters mainstream assumptions." Then that is something you will need to get consensus for. Per WP:ONUS, “the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.” And it is not enough to just cite one source because WP:EXCEPTIONAL says "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Any person looking at this objectively would conclude that if the CIA was involved, then the protests can no longer be considered organic. Politixsperson (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

If the only information we have available is that the CIA was involved, then I agree that a reasonable person would conclude that it would no longer be organic. However, the CIA is involved in movements across the world and these movements are still considered organic by many people. Atinoua (talk) 06:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Well if that what you believe then as I said that is something you will need to get consensus for. If you cannot then it will have to be removed. Politixsperson (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from. My view is not that the CIA intervening has no effect on whether the movement is organic. My view is that it depends on what the CIA is doing. The CIA intervenes around the world to different extents for the purposes of Counterterrorism, Nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, Indications and warnings for senior policymakers, Counterintelligence and Cyber intelligence. Would a reasonable person believe that any decisions for any of these purposes automatically mean that these interventions are not organic? Isn't it possible for, say, a counterterrorism intervention, to also be organic among the people of the country with the terrorism? To put it in context, this document claims that typewriters and fax machines were given to the protestors. Did the giving of typewriters cause the movement to begin or did the movement beginning cause the typewriters to be given? Is having typewriters the pivotal factor in the existence of their movement? My view is that this aid could not have been the origin of the movement because the movement itself exists beyond what's possible with being given typewriters and fax machines. Atinoua (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

It is possible, but you would need sourcing that abides by policy that says that. Two things to note here though one is that different standards apply. So while CIA involvement may make a cause less organic in one case, that does not mean its involvement in a different cause would make it less organic (its involvement in furthering the Ukrainian cause to defeat Russia's invasion of Ukraine for instance). And second, let us not overlook the other angle with this CIA theory, which is that it is the same line that the Chinese government has taken in justifying their crackdown on the protesters. You will need to get some one else to take an independent look at for this. But until then, for the reasons I have cited, I am removing the information. Politixsperson (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

My point that the cause of CIA involvement in a particular movement to make that movement look less organic is determined by what exactly the CIA did. The protests begin initially from Hu Yaobang's death, which the CIA was not involved with. The sources that we have at the moment show that the CIA had aided the students with typewriters and fax machines. It does not say that the CIA aiding the students means that the protests were not organic. I don't agree that properly sourced information should be removed from our article. Do we have evidence that goes against the source we have? Also, the government of China's perspective isn't really relevant to the source that we have. Our article should reflect historically events neutrally and not exclude certain sources on the basis that the Chinese government also says it happened. One final thing is that China's rationale for the crackdowns is not what this sentence was about, and I agree with you that our article should not say a particular action was just/unjust. Our article must be neutral. Atinoua (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Retaining policy violating material upsets the neutrality of the article. What is at issue is not properly sourced information being removed it is that bad information is being removed from the article. Politixsperson (talk) 04:19, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain further on how this source violates the neutrality of the article. Atinoua (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Politixsperson The paragraph was present well before you alone argued it be removed. As such, you are responsible for justifying the removal of sourced content. ADifferentMan (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is time agnostic. It doesn't matter when the content was written. What matters is who wants the content included. You are the person who wants to material to stay, so the responsibility lies with you to justify keeping the paragraph which you wrote. Politixsperson (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've justified it quite clearly, multiple times above. ADifferentMan (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: Fall 2023 HIST 401

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 September 2023 and 14 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DAgatep1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by DAgatep1 (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

6 October 2023 Edit Suggestion

Hello again! I am looking to make a change to a sentence in our article. This change aims to provide a more accurate explanation of events so that the reader will have a better understanding of history and current events. The sentence I would like to change is this: "The events remain one of the most sensitive and most widely censored topics in China."

I would like to change it to this: "Although there are mentions of the events in Chinese state media, they remain one of the most sensitive and most widely censored topics in China."

This change is important because if state media references the protests, then it isn't entirely forbidden within the country. Having this nuance means that, at least to some extent, there is a degree of ability for people to learn about the protests. It's important to maintain the last part of the sentence ("the events remain one of the most sensitive and most widely censored topics in China") because it is something taboo within the country. The evidence I have to support this change also does not have the entire series of events listed. The important part, however, is that this change will help bring nuance to the extent that this topic is censored. Please let me know what thoughts you have on this change. Thank you! Atinoua (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we should wait for our existing disagreements to be resolved first before trying to settle this one. If we do not, then the changes will get very muddled. Politixsperson (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there any problems with this suggestion? I don't see why we cannot have this change especially because this one is unrelated to the others. Atinoua (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Chinese state media making reference to the event does not mean that the event is not a censored topic in the country. The description can also (and does as your sources show) extend to its reporting - censor does not simply mean making no mention of the event. The text also says the event is widely censored topic and not completely censored topic so your argument is a bit moot. It is not an inaccurate description of a state of affairs where only state media or government officials can report on the event. Politixsperson (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. There's some things I need to clarify. You write that "Chinese state media making reference to the event does not mean that the event is not a censored topic in the country." I agree, and my suggestion directly says that it is a censored topic in China. My suggestion clarifies that it has not completely disappeared in China, but that it is of the most widely censored topics in China. The reason it is important is because of the nuance it provides. You write: " It is not an inaccurate description of a state of affairs where only state media or government officials can report on the event." and I agree with this as well. My suggestion does not change that. Please let me know your thoughts! Atinoua (talk) 12:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. The state media is part of the censorship apparatus which is responsible for making the event "one of the most sensitive and most widely censored topics in China." Your suggestion attempts to draw a contrast contrast between the two, and I am saying that is a false dichotomy. Politixsperson (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

This suggestion is not drawing a contrast between the state media and the censorship, it is clarifying the extent that this topic is widely censored by providing details about how it is mentioned in their state media. I am not trying to say that the state media isn't part of the censorship apparatus. Atinoua (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You are trying to draw a contrast, it is why you are using the word "although" Politixsperson (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The suggestion is to clarify the extent that there is censorship of the topic. If you don't like the use of the word "although" I'm fine with changing it Atinoua (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not relevant what Chinese state media says referring to themselves mentioning it. Do we know that Chinese citizens are able to access those pages? And how they are mentioning it matters. Why do you think the reader benefits from this addition? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:27, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

But I do not really see the need for the rest of your suggested edit either. Clarification has already been given in the introduction section, in the part where it says "strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic and foreign affiliated press," and the article which is hyperlinked to part where it says "the censored topics in China" Politixsperson (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:BADREVERT, we should "not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article)." But I believe this change is not neutral and would improve the article. By adding these 10 words, it emphasizes that the government's strict control over the press persists to this day. It's not more open today, it's actually more censored than it was in the immediate aftermath. This change adds the details that would help to clarify the extent of the censorship. Atinoua (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It is relevant what Chinese state media is saying because it shows that these events are censored. Their media doesn't clarify the totality of what happened. The purpose of this suggestion though, is to clarify that it is not completely erased in China. Their coverage, as Politixsperson said, is "strictly controlled" by their state media. To answer your question more directly, the reader would benefit from this addition because they won't get the incorrect impression that it is completely erased in China, but rather that it is heavily censored. Atinoua (talk) 17:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia rules

@Pyrrho the Skipper @Politixsperson @Atinoua Wikipedia has a rule where changes to the page must be done through a consensus. It seems like some of you are making changes through voting rather than consensus. ElizaWikiEdits (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Reverted Edit August 15 2023

Hello User:Politixsperson! I wanted to thank you for your interest in editing this article. And I wanted to say that parts of your edit were perfectly fine! I don't want to discourage you from wanting to contribute to the article. I wanted to expand on my reasoning for reverting your edit.

The first part of my reasoning was that relevant context was removed. In the first paragraph, the original version highlighted that the Tiananmen Square Protests was not a singular event, but rather a series of demonstrations. The original version also provides the context that 3 June was the day martial law was declared. Going further it adds more details about how there were negotiations that took place from the sides of both the Chinese government and the protestors. Lastly with the first paragraph, the details of martial law were removed.

Other details you added (such as martial law being declared on 20 May) did not include critical information such as how the troops pulled back to the suburbs. This is something that I wouldn't have any problems with adding. Other editors are invited to contribute to creating a consensus.

The second part of reasoning was that some of the content was moved out of chronological order. In the original version, the estimates of the death toll was located between the military action and the immediate aftermath.

The details you added about Operation Yellowbird and arms embargoes is perfectly fine. I can add them back if you'd like. What are your thoughts? Atinoua (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Atinoua well I thought my version highlighted a bit clearer the things you want included, namely that the protests was not a singular event but a series of demonstrations and the negotiations that took place between the government and protesters. The martial law aspect, this can go back in but of course it will have to be written in a way we can both agree on. I do not agree however that the death toll should not be in the introductory section given how important that figure is to the event. The version before your "original version" did have the death toll in the intro which stood for quite some time. But nevertheless, in the interest of maintaining forward momentum in our discussion, can you provide a version of what it is that you are proposing? In the mean time, it looks like we have agreement on the other parts of my version, so I will put that back in Politixsperson (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello @Politixsperson! I'll try to answer all of your questions.

By including "The Tiananmen Square protests and massacre . . . was an event that began on April 15 with student led demonstrations" This may confuse the reader because it could be interpreted as the massacre beginning on April 15. If we instead have our article say "The Tiananmen Square protests . . . were student-led demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China, lasting from 15 April to 4 June, 1989", then there is no room for ambiguity because the following line clarifiers the massacre: "On the night of 3 June, after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law, and deployed troops to occupy the Square in what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre."

There is also this line you suggest: "after an impasse in negotiations between the demonstrators and the Chinese government culminated in the forcible suppression of the protests on 4 June when the government sent the People's Liberation Army to occupy parts of central Beijing." This takes away emphasis from the multiple attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully. And these attempts were initiated both by the government and by the student protestors. Rather than focusing on the ending, the reader will have a better understanding if we emphasize the build up prior to June 4. This is why I believe that this line is so important: "On the night of 3 June, after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law, and deployed troops to occupy the Square in what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." Another reason why this line is important is because it emphasizes that it was the night of June 3.

By including the line: "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." it acknowledges that the majority of deaths occurred outside the square, not directly inside.

The lead section is a summary of the entire article. The article has an entire section dedicated to the death toll and the death toll is already included in the lead. I agree that it's an important figure, and it is included in the lead. I just don't think it should be taken out of where it was originally in chronological order.

I also want to know why this paragraph was deleted and if it can be added back as well: "After several weeks of standoffs and violent confrontations between the army and demonstrators left many on both sides severely injured, a meeting held among the CCP's top leadership on 1 June concluded with a decision to clear the square. The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June and engaged in bloody clashes with demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded." This paragraph is important because it adds emphasis on the weeks leading up to June 4 as well as emphasis on the Bejing streets where deaths occurred. It also mentions more details about how protestors attempted to block the advancement towards the square. Keeping the mention of mobilization of troops to Beijing also adds to the same point. Also, by maintaining how various western countries had labeled the crackdown a massacre, it adds more details about the origins of the label "massacre".

When it comes to a version I would approve on that incorporates your suggestions, it would be this. What are your thoughts?:

"The Tiananmen Square protests, known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident were student-led demonstrations held in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China, lasting from 15 April to 4 June, 1989. On the night of 3 June, after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law, and deployed troops to occupy the Square in what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre. The events are sometimes called the '89 Democracy Movement, the Tiananmen Square Incident, or the Tiananmen uprising.

...

As the protests developed, the authorities responded with both conciliatory and hardline tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership. By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support around the country for the demonstrators, and the protests spread to some 400 cities. In response, the State Council declared martial law on 20 May however, the troops had pulled back to the suburbs that same day. After several weeks of standoffs and violent confrontations between the army and demonstrators left many on both sides severely injured, the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee held a meeting and declared martial law again on 2 June to clear the square. The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June and engaged in bloody clashes with demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded.

The event had both short and long term consequences. Various Western media outlets labeled the crackdown a "massacre" and Western countries imposed an arms embargo on China in response to the crackdown which remains in force today. In the aftermath of the protests, the Chinese government suppressed other protests around China, carried out mass arrests of protesters which catalyzed Operation Yellowbird, strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic and foreign affiliated press, and demoted or purged officials it deemed sympathetic to the protests." Atinoua (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Atinoua (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Atinoua you have brought up a lot of points so I will do my best to answer all of them. If I missed one, please let me know.

I am not sure how the reader would be confused into thinking that the protests and massacre both occurred on April 15 when my version clearly makes reference to the date range in which the event occurred. However, since the version before yours did actually split the protest and massacre portion up, I am ok with structuring the lead in that way.

For the "impasse" part, I really cannot agree with describing the resolution process peacefully. As the article notes, there was already rioting by the protesters and harsh commentary by the government before negotiations between the two even took place. When they did, they were in beginning peaceful as you pointed out, but they soon turned hostile. As the the "Escalations" and "Military Action" sections makes very clear, the position of the hardliners - on both sides - won out in the end. Had the moderates won out, the "build up" would look very different and indeed there would have been no "June 4" to speak of at all.

This line here: "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." Once more, I cannot agree with this. The sources all refer to it as a massacre, so there is no need for the qualifier. It isnt necessary to make the distinction whether the deaths occurred inside or outside the square. What is important is that the deaths occurred at the square itself.

For the "June 1" paragraph, putting in information about how protestors attempted to block the advancement and how the government mobilized troops strikes me as being far too detailed for an introductory section. While I think we can put a sentence about the protesters, it will have to be included in a way that reflects the proper chronology of the event.

"various western countries had labeled the crackdown a massacre". There are no sources in the article to support this assertion so this proposal is one I cannot support.

Here is my suggestion:

The Tiananmen Square protests, known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident were student-led demonstrations held at Tiananmen Square, Beijing, that began on April 15, 1989. After a months-long impasse in negotiations between the demonstrators and the Chinese government, the government forcibly suppressed the protests when the People's Liberation Army cleared the square of the protesters on June 4 in what is referred to as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, or in Chinese the June Fourth Clearing or June Fourth Massacre. The protests and massacre are collectively known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident and sometimes referred to as the '89 Democracy Movement, the Tiananmen Square crackdown, the Tiananmen Square Incident, or the Tiananmen uprising.,

...

As the protests developed, the authorities responded with both conciliatory and hardline tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership. By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support around the country for the demonstrators, and the protests spread to some 400 cities. In response, the State Council declared martial law on May 20 and on June 2, the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee on June 2 made the decision to use force to clear the square, leading to clashes between the military and demonstrators. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded.

The event had both short and long term consequences. Western countries imposed an arms embargo on China in response to the crackdown which remains in force today. In the aftermath of the protests, the Chinese government suppressed other protests around China, carried out mass arrests of protesters which catalyzed Operation Yellowbird, strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic and foreign affiliated press, and demoted or purged officials it deemed sympathetic to the protests. The government also invested heavily into creating more effective police riot control units. More broadly, the suppression ended the political reforms begun in 1986 and halted the policies of liberalization of the 1980s, which were only partly resumed after Deng Xiaoping's Southern Tour in 1992. Considered a watershed event, reaction to the protests set limits on political expression in China that have lasted up to the present day. The events remain one of the most sensitive and most widely censored topics in China. Politixsperson (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for your reply. I'll number the replies so that it's organized better.

1. "I am not sure how the reader would be confused into thinking that the protests and massacre both occurred on April 15 when my version clearly makes reference to the date range in which the event occurred." The reader may interpret the massacre as lasting throughout teh date range. A massacre that spans across multiple days.
2. "For the "impasse" part, I really cannot agree with describing the resolution process peacefully. As the article notes, there was already rioting by the protesters and harsh commentary by the government before negotiations between the two even took place. When they did, they were in beginning peaceful as you pointed out, but they soon turned hostile." There were numerous attempts from both sides to resolve the conflict peacefully. Clashes with protestors and police were nonviolent on numerous occasions (could they even be called clashes at that point?) and negotiations were also done on numerous occasions in a nonviolent way. Just to name a few, on the night of April 18, students tried to break into Xinhuamen. There were police present but there were no clashes between police and students. On April 27, there was a student demontration and police had set up barricades. Students had broken through the barricades. Liang Xiaoyan, a teacher, noted in an interview: "...it was obvious that the police were not ordered to beat people up. They only tried to form a human blockade.” On May 14, the government agreed to talk with the protestors. There are more instances but I'm sure you get the point.
3. "This line here: "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." Once more, I cannot agree with this. The sources all refer to it as a massacre, so there is no need for the qualifier. It isnt necessary to make the distinction whether the deaths occurred inside or outside the square. What is important is that the deaths occurred at the square itself." While it's true that some western media outlets refer to it as a massacre, there are sources that do not refer to it as a massacre.[3] It's important to make the distinction that the deaths were outside the square because it's referred to as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, not the Beijing massacre. This is something the source above also points out. There is also the idea (that probably comes from propaganda) that students were gunned down at the monument, but this is not what happened. It's important to present all the facts, especially when propaganda (from both side) is heavily influencing what people think. The truth is what's most important and our article should not allow for misinterpretation of the facts.
4. "For the "June 1" paragraph, putting in information about how protestors attempted to block the advancement and how the government mobilized troops strikes me as being far too detailed for an introductory section. While I think we can put a sentence about the protesters, it will have to be included in a way that reflects the proper chronology of the event." The protestors attempt to block the advancement of the square is extremely important and should be included because the troops were ordered to use force if their path to the square was stopped. Because their path to the square was stopped, then violence was used. Without this detail, it may contribute to the idea that the protestors were gunned down at the monument. This is again important to prevent the misinterpretation of facts.
5. "various western countries had labeled the crackdown a massacre". There are no sources in the article to support this assertion so this proposal is one I cannot support." My guess is that there's no source because it's implied intuitively that western governments like the US label this event as a massacre. Are you suggesting that western countries do not label it a massacre?

These are additional points that I don't feel like were addressed:

6. And these attempts [to resolve the conflict peacefully] were initiated both by the government and by the student protestors. Rather than focusing on the ending, the reader will have a better understanding if we emphasize the build up prior to June 4. This is why I believe that this line is so important: "On the night of 3 June, after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law, and deployed troops to occupy the Square in what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." Another reason why this line is important is because it emphasizes that it was the night of June 3.

7. I also want to know why this paragraph was deleted and if it can be added back as well: "After several weeks of standoffs and violent confrontations between the army and demonstrators left many on both sides severely injured, a meeting held among the CCP's top leadership on 1 June concluded with a decision to clear the square. The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June and engaged in bloody clashes with demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded." This paragraph is important because it adds emphasis on the weeks leading up to June 4 as well as emphasis on the Bejing streets where deaths occurred. It also mentions more details about how protestors attempted to block the advancement towards the square. Keeping the mention of mobilization of troops to Beijing also adds to the same point. Atinoua (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

1. Well my version makes clear that the the massacre occurred specifically on June 4. But again, it seems like this is not a point we need to really argue over. As I have already said, I am okay with splitting the two portions up.

2. "Clashes with protestors and police were nonviolent" But a clash by its nature cannot be non-violent. So I am not really sure what you are arguing here. Yes, they initially agreed to talk, but as the article shows, the talks soon broke down. This is why the government declared martial law - not a move that I would think could be called a peaceful way to resolve a dispute.

3. That is one person quoted in one source. If we use the Telegraph source, a quick search shows four articles which use the phrase Tiananmen Square Massacre [4][5][6] [7] We include what the sources say, not what we wish they said, and if the preponderance of source refer to the event as a massacre, then that is what we go by.

4. "Because their path to the square was stopped, then violence was used." But we can just as easily say the violence occurred because the army made the decision to clear the square in the first place. The easiest solution would just be to say there were clashes between the protesters and military and to leave it at that. Remember, this is an introductory section so it is best to keep things short and simple

5. If it is "intuitively implied", then maybe its sheer obviousness means the point does not need to be mentioned in the article. My point though is that we need to go by what the sources say. If there are no sources which say "various western countries had labeled the crackdown a massacre" then it does not belong here.

6. I do not mean to be offensive, but I cannot understand what you are trying to say here.

7. I think you have covered your arguments here in point 4.

I fear we might be going in circles, so in the interest of keeping the discussion moving along, I am going to suggest using my version as a base template to work off of and ask that you make proposals for changes to the text as suggestions for improvement. Politixsperson (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Let me know if there's anything I haven't responded to:

2. The point about "a clash by its nature cannot be non-violent" is just an argument about the word choice. If a clash cannot be non-violent then the non-violent attempts to resolve the disagreements are not clashes. Regardless, it's important to include that both the government and the students had attempted to resolve the conflict peacefully. The reader will have a more nuanced understanding of events if we continue to emphasize the peaceful confrontations and negotiations took place the weeks prior to June 4. You're right to say that the peaceful attempts to negotiate were ultimately not successful and that is also emphasized in the original version with the clearing of the square through martial law. This does not mean that the peaceful attempts didn't exist though.

3. The primary source is cables sent from the United States embassy in Beijing, not simply 1 person. Here is just 1 quote from the article (there are many more that we can get into if necessary): "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."

I am not arguing that this is The Telegraph UK's official perspective, my point is that there are sources that do not refer to it as a massacre. This is one of those sources. This is why the line "...often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." is important to have. It is often referring to as a massacre, but there are sources that say otherwise.

4. I'm not yet convinced that the details about how protestors are attempting to block them is too detailed. From my view, this information is so important because the reasoning for the deaths wasn't because the troops were out to kill students, it was because the troops were ordered to clear the square. This counters common propaganda myths about the protests and it's important to have a balanced article. I agree that every detail about how protestors attempted to block them shouldn't be included in our article, but I worry that by deleting this important information, it is oversimplifying the events and hurting the balance of the article.

5. I agree with you that we need to follow the evidence. This distinction is important because not all media and countries label it as a massacre. I'm sure this isn't the first instance, but here is 1 source from the US government which calls it a massacre.[8]

6. My point here is to say that our article will be improved by emphasizing not only June 4, but also protests that had occurred before June 4. Atinoua (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

2. How about this: "While negotiations between the two sides started out amicably, this soon changed as hardliners came to increasingly dominate the discussions." We can put this in the third paragraph as that is where it goes into the course of events in a bit more detail.

3. The overwheming majoritity of sources including the ones used in this article refer to it as a massacre. That is what we need to go by. I am sorry if I am a blunt on this, but I do not see how I can state this in another way.

4. "because the reasoning for the deaths wasn't because the troops were out to kill students, it was because the troops were ordered to clear the square." Well then in that case your focus should be on the order, not the protesters blocking them. Putting the focus on the blocking would be no less propagandistic than putting the focus on the military order. Better to simply say there were clashes between the protesters and military and to leave it at that.

5. We will need sources that specifically say Western countries and outlets called the square a massacre. We also need to keep in mind that there are many non Western sources which do refer to the event as a massacre. [9] [10] [11] [12] Politixsperson (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

2. The problem I have with this suggestion is that it takes away the important information about the peaceful negotiation process that had happened. The language of peaceful negotiations from both sides shows the nuance and remains balanced. I wonder what @ADifferentMan thoughts are on this. He might have a better solution that neither of us are thinking of. I don't think internal party struggle is something that should be in the lead for this article.

3. Both can be true. The majority of the sources in our article can refer it as a massacre and at the same time, not all sources agree that it was a massacre. This is why I think it's important for our article to say "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." The word "often" (instead of using a word like "sometimes" or "rarely") reflects how the majority of our sources refer to it as a massacre.

4. I partially agree with you here. I think that both the order to clear the square and the details about protestors blocked their advancement. We will need ADifferentMan's perspective to build a consensus.

5. I don't think a secondary source is necessary in this case. Why wouldn't documents from the US government calling it a massacre suffice the question of whether western sources label it a massacre? Also, something being "western" in this context doesn't mean that it has to be literally in the west. It just has to be westernized: The west has to have significant influence in a country. Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan are all westernized. Some countries that aren't westernized are China, Russia, DPRK, and Iran. If there's evidence of non-western/western-aligned countries reporting on this, it would show that not all non-western countries agree. Maybe instead of having it say: "various western countries had labeled the crackdown a "massacre"" we could say "various western-aligned countries had labeled the crackdown a "massacre"". What are your thoughts? Atinoua (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

2. Most of the material you want kept were written by ADifferentMan. If we want to build proper consensus, then it will have to come from some one else who did not already work on the parts of the article we are discussing. I'm not clear how my suggestion takes away information about the peacefulness of the negotiations. It says at right at the get go that they "started out amicably"

3. The sources which do not call it a massacre are in the very tiny minority. As such, the description of the events as a massacre can and should be stated as fact.

4. As with #2, we will need some one else to take a look at this.

5. "Why wouldn't documents from the US government calling it a massacre suffice the question of whether western sources label it a massacre?" But you are already assuming that you have an accepted criteria for determining what makes something "Western." This same assumption appears to underlie your assertion that "Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan are all westernized." I think a lot of people myself included would find fault with that assumption, and that is a reason why I keep asking you to provide sources that specifically say (only) Western countries and outlets called the events at the square a massacre.

A final point I notice that the current version of the introduction section especially the first paragraph includes some of the material which you added and we are discussing. But out of basic fairness, it would seem like the version should instead go back to the one that existed before you added your material [13]. Can I go ahead and make this change? Politixsperson (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

2. All editors are invited to contribute to building consensus and ADifferentMan is no exception. Everybody wants what's best for our article. With that being said, my point is that the language that was there originally places much more emphasis on the peaceful negotiations and my argument has been that level of emphasis is needed.

3. When you're presenting information, it's important to look at all evidence and present your conclusions in an unbiased way. By ignoring evidence that contradicts the status quo majority, it's hurting the balance of our article. This is why "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." is better for the reasons we had already discussed.

5. You're right that I'm assuming the United States is western, but this is a common understanding. I get your point when you say not everyone would agree that, for example, Japan, is westernized (although the west has had huge influence in their country). To clarify, a better sentence might say: "various western-aligned countries had labeled the crackdown a "massacre""

6. Before making any big changes to our article, I recommend that we discuss the problems with the article on the talk page like what we have been doing. For example, I made a suggestion to edit the article on July 7 and waited for any other editors to voice their opinion of my proposal. I edited the article on August 3. What's more important is not who wrote the article, but what information is presented within the article and I'd argue what's fair is what can be concluded from the available evidence. Please let me know your thoughts. Atinoua (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

2. Asking ADifferentMan to build consensus would undermine the process by stacking the votes to your advantage. We are going to need another editor to give an unbiased look at this.

3. The "status quo majority" language would be to state the massacre as a fact because that is how the vast majority of the sources describe the event. Going through your talk page, this is something that another editor has also informed you of (When reliable sources report information as fact, it is reported as fact in Wikipedia articles. For example, if CNN says that that one million Uygurs are currently incarcerated, then the article says that.) and of which you already appear to be aware.

4. "various western-aligned countries had labeled the crackdown a "massacre". This is still relying on the same problematic assumption.

5. "waited for any other editors to voice their opinion of my proposal. " Well I am using my voice here to tell you I do not agree to what you are proposing. You made big changes to the article and I do not agree with them. So out of basic fairness, it would seem like we should go back to the version that existed before you added your material Politixsperson (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

2. I only say that we should ask ADifferentMan because he has been active on this page. He may disagree or he may agree with either of our suggestions. Regardless, nobody should be excluded from consensus building. This is not votestacking, ADifferentMan is very active here.

3. My point is that our article should not exclude facts and historical analysis on the basis that they disagree with the status quo. That is not what the editor on my talk page was talking about. The situation on my talk page was referencing sources that are deprecated and therefore considered unreliable on Wikipedia. However, The source I used in our discussion was The Daily Telegraph and is considered reliable according to Wikipedia's standards. This source shows that not all sources agree that it is a massacre. As a result, it is important to use the language of "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." The word "often" shows how there are many sources that call it a massacre.

4. The words "various western-aligned countries had labeled the crackdown a "massacre" works around the problem you had brought up earlier because the eastern countries you sourced are all economically supported by the west. For example, when you compare America's support for South Korea vs North Korea, it becomes clear which country is western-aligned and which is not. This is a very common understanding of the words.

5. If you do not agree with any information in the article, use the talk page to discuss it (as we have been doing). Please give specific reasons why you do not agree with a particular edit. Atinoua (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I have asked some one to come here and take an independent look at the discussion. Respectful as it has been, I do not think we are going to make progress given how wide the gap between our positions is. Politixsperson (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

@Atinoua: I will attempt to stay active here for any discussions. Unfortunately, I can't make guarantees, since I've been a bit busy in real life, so my apologies in advance. ADifferentMan (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You made big changes to the article and I do not agree with them. So out of basic fairness, it would seem like we should go back to the version that existed before you added your material

This sounds a whole lot like "These changes are unfair because I don't like them, therefore they should be removed". ADifferentMan (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like that you because you have not read WP:BRD Politixsperson (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Why was this moved to the bottom? It's not very important I am just curious. Atinoua (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

To stop it from getting archived Politixsperson (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Summary request

I came here from WP:3O, but the above is a pretty imposing wall of text to read. Could both of you summarize, in maybe a paragraph or two, what your position is, why you think it's correct, and what reliable and independent sources support it? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your interest. I am very sorry that this post is so long! I’ve made multiple revisions to shorten this post and this is the best I’ve gotten. I don't want to cut out any important details, but I numbered each change so that you will have an easier time reading it. I just don't want to risk having oversimplified explanations. There was a lot of discussion and I tried my best to provide explanations which cover the reasoning for the change thoroughly. It’s possible that I left out some information and explanation and I will clarify it if needed. Sorry again for the length! This is genuinely my best effort. Please let me know if there's anything I did wrong or if you need me to clarify anything. Thank you!

1. The first point of contention is the opening paragraph. In our earlier discussion, I pointed out how the Tiananmen Square protests were a series of events, not one singular one. This is shown throughout our article which started with the Death of Hu Yaobang. By mentioning how there were “student-led demonstrations held in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China, lasting from 15 April to 4 June, 1989”, it places emphasis that these protests were ongoing and were not a 1-day singular event. This change will prevent the reader from potentially interpreting the massacre as having spanned across multiple days (from 15 April to 4 June).
2. There is a worry that the change listed in the first point may take away emphasis from the massacre that occurred. This is fair criticism and to balance this, I made sure that the very next sentence will leave no room for ambiguity: “On the night of 3 June, after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law, and deployed troops to occupy the Square in what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre.” The second reason this sentence is so important is because it adds emphasis to the multiple attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully. The reader will have a better understanding if we emphasize the build up prior to June 4. These peaceful attempts to negotiate were ultimately not successful, which is shown with the declaration of martial law. It also is an improvement because it emphasizes that martial law was declared on the night of June 3. The evidence I used for this is from the film The Gate of Heavenly Peace. There are many examples, but to keep it short, one of the pieces of evidence is an interview with Liang Xiaoyan, a teacher. On April 27, there was a student demonstration and police had set up barricades. Students had broken through the barricades. She said: "...it was obvious that the police were not ordered to beat people up. They only tried to form a human blockade.” Many of my sources are from this film and I can cite specific timestamps (and more sources) if necessary. Please let me know!
3. The line "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." is also contested. My perspective is that the word “often” is necessary because it acknowledges that some sources say that the deaths were outside of the square, not directly inside. By using the word "often" (instead of using a word like "sometimes" or "rarely"), it reflects how the majority of our sources refer to it as a massacre. Here is one source which makes this claim. It's important to make the distinction that the deaths were outside the square because it's referred to as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, not the Beijing massacre. This is something the source above also points out.
4. There is also a paragraph that I do not want to be deleted from the article. It reads: “After several weeks of standoffs and violent confrontations between the army and demonstrators left many on both sides severely injured, a meeting held among the CCP's top leadership on 1 June concluded with a decision to clear the square. The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June and engaged in bloody clashes with demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded.” My view is that this is extremely important to include because the troops were ordered to use force if their path to the square was stopped. Since their path to the square was stopped, then violence was used. It adds extremely important details for the rationale of the use of force which will help the reader have a better understanding of events. It also adds emphasis on the weeks leading up to June 4 as well as emphasis on the Beijing streets where most deaths occurred. I worry that by deleting this important information, it is oversimplifying the events and hurting the balance of the article. This is also found in The Gate of Heavenly Peace.
5. This fifth change was unrelated to the original post, but it is also something we are having disagreements over and I believe a third opinion would help move the discussion forward. I would like to include this sentence to the lead: “These student-led demonstrations initially began as peaceful protests but eventually escalated into calls to overthrow the government.” This addition would provide a more balanced perspective of events and also helps the reader understand the extent of which the students are committed to their cause. Protesting for your ideals is 1 thing, but calling to overthrow the government (and risk facing the consequences of that) takes their commitment to another level that our lead currently does not address. Also, there were concerns over whether alluding to the calls to overthrow the government being illegal hurts the neutrality of the article. It could mean that these calls to overthrow the government were wrong, but it also could mean that the government policy itself was wrong. This suggestion doesn't point in either direction. I personally do not think the crackdowns were good, but my personal perspective is irrelevant to the fact that we must present history accurately and neutrally. This suggestion only mentions the nuance of the situation and the extent of the protestors' convictions. For an example, I pointed to the Slavery in the United States article and how it mentions how teaching slaves to read was illegal. Does this hurt the neutrality of that article? My perspective is no, and the same is true for my suggestion. Here’s the evidence which supports this addition:
   1. Evidence 1. "The April 26 editorial made every student at Beijing University very angry. Until then, we really did not want to overthrow the communist government." Evidence 2. "As the decade of the 1980s wound to a close and Deng turned eighty four, university students found themselves consumed with passions other than revolutionary fervor. The ideology of Communism had become meaningless. As far as they were concerned, the Party in the 1980s was left with no role except a parasitic one; to protect its members' privileges... With no role for Communism, the role of the party evaporates." Evidence 3. An unnamed student said this: "Good people must stand up and declare that the Communist party should step down... Like a great tree, the Communist party, when it was young had deep roots and luxuriant foliage and reached up to the heaven...But the leaders are now completely corrupt. The roots of this great tree have rotted, and insects infest not just the roots but the tree itself. It should be removed." Evidence 4. On 27 May, Student leader Chai Ling, said to a crowd of protestors: "Those who lose the heart of the people will perish! Overthrow the illegal government headed by Li Ping!" This can be found in the film The Gate of Heavenly Peace. Evidence 5. Continuing in the film, there was an interview with former government official Wu Guoguang, he said this about the party: "I thought the only workable thing was to join up and try to change it [the government]. Committing suicide myself wouldn’t do the country much good. A more useful thing was to help the communist party commit suicide. Lenin taught us that the easiest way to take a fortress was from within. There’s also the Trojan horse from Ancient Greece. If you can’t win from confrontation, you have to try sneaking inside." Evidence 6. In another interview with writer Dai Qing, she says this: “What a student movement represents is a call for social justice. There are times when we have no choice but to take to the streets, vent our anger, and show our determination to change things. April 27th was such a time. The students did a great job and the government was forced to change its usual behavior. But our ultimate goal is to change the entire system. This cannot be accomplished by students staying in the streets." This interview can also be found in The Gate of Heavenly Peace. Atinoua (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Atinoua (talk) 06:22, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

There's an awful lot there indeed. Politixsperson, what is your view on these? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade. Thank you for responding to this request. There is indeed a lot to get through but the issues are fairly straightforward to understand and I believe these can be resolved in short order. I will address the points that Atinoua raised one by one, but as a reference point, here is the version of the material that I originally proposed

The Tiananmen Square protests, known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident were student-led demonstrations held at Tiananmen Square, Beijing, that began on April 15, 1989. After a months-long impasse in negotiations between the demonstrators and the Chinese government, the government forcibly suppressed the protests when the People's Liberation Army cleared the square of the protesters on June 4 in what is referred to as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, or in Chinese the June Fourth Clearing or June Fourth Massacre. The protests and massacre are collectively known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident and sometimes referred to as the '89 Democracy Movement, the Tiananmen Square crackdown, the Tiananmen Square Incident, or the Tiananmen uprising.,

...

As the protests developed, the authorities responded with both conciliatory and hardline tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership. By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support around the country for the demonstrators, and the protests spread to some 400 cities. In response, the State Council declared martial law on May 20 and on June 2, the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee on June 2 made the decision to use force to clear the square, leading to clashes between the military and demonstrators. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded.

The event had both short and long term consequences. Western countries imposed an arms embargo on China in response to the crackdown which remains in force today. In the aftermath of the protests, the Chinese government suppressed other protests around China, carried out mass arrests of protesters which catalyzed Operation Yellowbird, strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic and foreign affiliated press, and demoted or purged officials it deemed sympathetic to the protests. The government also invested heavily into creating more effective police riot control units. More broadly, the suppression ended the political reforms begun in 1986 and halted the policies of liberalization of the 1980s, which were only partly resumed after Deng Xiaoping's Southern Tour in 1992. Considered a watershed event, reaction to the protests set limits on political expression in China that have lasted up to the present day. The events remain one of the most sensitive and most widely censored topics in China.

1. To me, this is not really an issue as I do not have an issue with splitting up the protest and massacre summary of the event in the introduction section.

2. This downplays how the negotiations descended into hostility which is what led the government to declare martial law in the first place. As the "Escalations" and "Military Action" sections makes very clear, the position of the hardliners on both sides won out in the end. Had the moderates won out, the "build up" to June 4 as Atinoua puts it would have looked very different and indeed there would have been no "June 4" to speak of at all. It is correct to say the talks began peacefully, but it is also correct to say they ended acrimoniously. I tried to go for a compromise wording to reflect this (While negotiations between the two sides started out amicably, this soon changed as hardliners came to increasingly dominate the discussions.) but it wasn't accepted.

3. Virtually all sources used by the article refer to the events on June 4 as a massacre, so there is no need for the "often" qualifier. It isn't necessary to make the distinction whether the deaths occurred inside or outside the square. What is important is that the deaths occurred at the square itself.

4. The proposal places undue focus on the actions of the protesters and would be just as problematic as a proposal which placed the focus on the order to clear the square. Atinoua says since the path of the Chinese military to the square was stopped, violence was used, but we can just as easily say the violence only occurred because the army made the decision to clear the square in the first place. I told Atinoua that it was better to simply say there were clashes between the protesters and military and leave it at that as this was introduction section. But as with point 2, the suggestion wasn't accepted.

5. Calls to end Communist Party rule were part of the student’s call for constitutional due process, democracy, etc which has already been covered in the second paragraph of the introduction section. I suggested making that connection more explicit but did object the description of the student demands as “overthrowing the government" given the connotation of illegality by the word overthrow. The slavery comparison does not work because the goal of abolitionists was to abolish slavery, not to overthrow the U.S. government. It also does not work because the government eventually got around to the goal of abolishing slavery, unlike the Chinese government which to this day actively suppresses any discussion of Tiananmen within its borders.

6. There is a final issue here that Atinoua did not include in the list of issues to be addressed. In the “Funding and Support" section, there is a sentence on the CIA and its reported role in supporting the protests. I argued that having the information kept would violate WP:EXCEPTIONAL as it would “significantly alter mainstream assumptions” that the protest movement was organic and crackdown was not justified and thereby upset the neutrality of the article. It would also violate WP:EXCEPTIONAL as the assertion is not covered by multiple mainstream sources but rather sourced to a single article that relies on a bunch of anonymous sources. I proposed removing the whole sentence, but once again the suggestion was not accepted. Politixsperson (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi Seraphimblade do you have any comments on my views? I think Atinoua would agree with me when I say this disagreement has gone on for long enough so would be good we can get your opinion and bring it to a close. Politixsperson (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm going to try to offer my opinion on each of these points in the summary provided by Atinoua and countered by Politixsperson. I am not an expert on the event, but have read the points and counterpoints, as well as external material about the event.

Tagging Atinoua Politixsperson

Point by point:

1. If this is not really an issue, as Politixsperson says, than I'm not going to address it. Perhaps save it for another 3O if need be.

2. I think the way the first paragraph of the intro reads now is fine. I'm a little sketchy on point 2 and what exactly is being disputed, though.

3. I agree with Politixsperson.

4. I agree with Politixsperson. The "both sides, soldiers and students," etc. sounds like a false equivalence.

5. I agree with Politixsperson.

6. I agree with Politixsperson.

Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey! Thanks for your contribution. To help move point 2 forward, (and please correct me if I'm wrong, Politixsperson), they don't explicitly disagree with what I had written, but the change they want takes emphasis away from the events and attempts for a peaceful resolution that occurred numerous times prior to the clearing of the square.

For point 4, I agree that it's important to avoid a false equivalence. I also believe that it's important to include information about how the troops were ordered to use force if their path to the square was stopped. I believe that the article would be more balanced if the rationale were given for why violence was used. Politixsperson's perspective is that the army made the decision to clear the square, which is true. But the problem is that occupying and clearing the square doesn't require any bloodshed. Only when there is resistance was there bloodshed. This distinction is very important, and I am open to discussing further resolutions if there are disagreements with my current suggestion.

Regarding the other points, can you please elaborate more so that we can work on building a consensus?

Thank you again for helping. Looking forward to your reply. Atinoua (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

So you think bloodsehd and firing lives rounds at people and killing them is required when protesters refuse to move? And we're at risk of drawing this out forever if we go back and forth on every point and detail, don't you think? I did read everything you wrote, and everything the other editor wrote, and agree with the other editor on those points. What does it add to have me repeat what they said? I think you should feel welcome to start a new discussion on one point at a time, and follow up as needed with 3O, RfC, etc. But the way this 3O was presented was to address all of these points, which is not ideal, thus I did the best I could. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

You ask if I believe that firing live rounds at people is required when protestors refuse to move, and the answer is no. According to The Gate of Heavenly Peace, live rounds were used as protestors blocked the advancement of the troops towards the square. I believe our article would be improved if the reasoning was given as to why there was violence in the first place.

Regarding your second question, I believe it's important to clarify your reasoning so that we can work towards building a consensus for what can be changed. I understand that you're probably busy though and if you're unable to delve deeper into it, I fully understand. Atinoua (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper Thanks for providing your input.

For point 2, the issue is how we should portray the negotiations prior to the events of June 4. My argument is that what we currently have does not accurately reflect what is in the rest of the article (specifically, the material in the "Escalations" and "Military Action" sections) because it gives insufficient focus to the hostile turn that the negotiations took. It also contains an internal contradiction and risks inviting confusion. Right now it says "On the night of 3 June, after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law, and deployed troops to occupy the square." But the reader will ask: if both sides had spent weeks attempting to negotiate a peaceful resolution to the conflict, then why would the Chinese government need to resort to martial law and the deployment of troops to occupy the square? My first suggestion, which was to go for the easiest solution, was to avoid the issue altogether by describing the breakdown in negotiations as an impasse between the demonstrators and the Chinese government. When this was rejected, I pivoted and addressed the contradiction in a more direct way by noting how while the negotiations between the two sides started out amicably, this soon changed as hardliners came to increasingly dominate the discussions. But once again, my proposal wasn't accepted.

To sum it up in a direct way, what I am trying to say is this. What should be done with the sentence "On the night of 3 June, after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law, and deployed troops to occupy the square."? Keep it? Change it to "After an impasse in negotiations between the demonstrators and the Chinese government, the government forcibly suppressed the protests on 4 June when the government sent the People's Liberation Army to occupy parts of central Beijing."? Or something different? Politixsperson (talk) 09:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please explain how what we currently have does not reflect the Escalations and Military action sections? Isn't the escalation reflected in the declaration of martial law? Isn't the military action reflected in the occupation of the square? Also, our lead immediately says this in the following paragraphs: "As the protests developed, the authorities responded with both conciliatory and hardline tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership.[10] By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support around the country for the demonstrators, and the protests spread to some 400 cities.[11] In response, the State Council declared martial law on May 20[11] and on June 2, the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee on June 2 made the decision to use military force to clear the square, leading to clashes between the military and demonstrators.[12][13][14] Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded." This text directly answers the question of "why the government needed to resort to martial law" (although I personally believe it wasn't necessary). However, I think the reader won't make the assumption that declaring martial law was necessary. I believe the reader will view it was an unnecessary escalation although it's important to maintain neutrality so I don't think that should be added.

For context so that Pyrrho the Skipper can know why I disagree with these changes, the reason the original sentence is better is because this suggestion takes away emphasis from the multiple attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully. And these attempts were initiated both by the government and by the student protestors. Rather than focusing on the ending, the reader will have a better understanding if we emphasize the build up prior to June 4. There were numerous attempts from both sides to resolve the conflict peacefully. Clashes with protestors and police were nonviolent on numerous occasions (could they even be called clashes at that point?) and negotiations were also done on numerous occasions in a nonviolent way. Just to name a few, on the night of April 18, students tried to break into Xinhuamen. There were police present but there were no clashes between police and students. On April 27, there was a student demontration and police had set up barricades. Students had broken through the barricades. Liang Xiaoyan, a teacher, noted in an interview: "...it was obvious that the police were not ordered to beat people up. They only tried to form a human blockade.” On May 14, the government agreed to talk with the protestors. I can provide more examples if necessary. There's many more. Just please let me know. Thank you! Atinoua (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Politixsperson The current sentence implies that there was an impasse, doesn't it? After weeks of attempts...". I don't see a reason to state the impasse. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper I think the language highlighting the breakdown in negotiations could be clearer. Something like this: "After weeks of unsuccessful attempts between the demonstrators and the Chinese government to find a peaceful resolution to the civil unrest, the Chinese government declared martial law, and on the night of 3 June deployed troops to occupy the square." More explicit, more accurate reflection of the material (the way the sentence is written right now says the Chinese government declared martial law on June 3, which is not true) and better flow. Politixsperson (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

That's definitely an improvement from the original suggestion made but the text "after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides" highlights that the unsuccessful resolution attempts included negotiations. How's this?

"After weeks of unsuccessful attempts between the demonstrators and the Chinese government to find a peaceful resolution, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law on the night of 3 June and deployed troops to occupy the square." Atinoua (talk) 19:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

The negotiations are implied in "attempts to find a peaceful resolution". I don't see why "negotiations from both sides" is needed. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:53, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

By providing the details that the peaceful resolution attempts included negotiations, it gives a better picture of how exactly the peaceful resolution process went about. By including "negotiations from both sides", it shows that the peacefulness negotiations were not one sided. Atinoua (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's already perfectly clear in the sentence: after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides

That sentence shows the both sides negotiated for peace. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper "The negotiations are implied in "attempts to find a peaceful resolution". I don't see why "negotiations from both sides" is needed." I agree and suggest we change it to "After weeks of unsuccessful attempts between the demonstrators and the Chinese government to find a peaceful resolution, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law on the night of 3 June and deployed troops to occupy the square." Let us know what you think.

Also, can you comment on this revert by Atinoua? I made changes which tried to implement the consensus based on the opinion that you provided, but they spuriously claimed there had been no consensus for them. Politixsperson (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Politixsperson What about "After weeks of attempts from both sides to negotiate a peaceful resolution" since a negotiation implies two or more parties doing the action.

And @Atinoua As this third opinion is at least a soft consensus for the removal of "often," could you restore Politixperson's edit? Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

All are welcome to contribute to the conversation and suggest ideas, but until there is a consensus, these changes shouldn't be made. It's important to work together to create something we can all agree on. That's why I would like to continue the discussion and with suggesting new ideas. Atinoua (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Each of the edit suggestions are independent. "Often" is not necessary or helpful. This particular part of the event IS referred to as the massacre, because that part of it was a massacre. Saying "often" muddies the waters by confusing it with the series of incidents. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please point towards a specific policy? The ones that I am seeing, such as WP:NOTDEMOCRACY says that consensus is required. That being said, there are ways that we can work together to build a consensus and I am open for that. For example, my perspective is that by using the word "often" is best for a few reasons. If you don't include the word often, or something similar, then it ignores the reliable sources that do not call it a massacre. While it's true that the majority of sources in our article do refer to it as a massacre, there are sources that do not. This is why I believe the word "often" is best instead of having it be a word like "sometimes" or "rarely". If the sentence read "sometimes referred to as a massacre" or "rare referred to as a massacre", it would be inaccurate because the majority do call it a massacre, ie. it is often referred to as a massacre. There was an argument being made that because the majority of sources refer to it was a massacre, that we cannot include the reliable evidence that don't refer to it as a massacre. This goes against the policy to "not choose which one is "true" and discard the others as incorrect". Atinoua (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper That almost looks ok, but I still think the language highlighting the breakdown in negotiations could be clearer by noting how the attempts at resolving the impasse were unsuccessful. "After weeks of unsuccessful attempts from both sides to negotiate a peaceful resolution" and that would be ready to go. As for your suggestions to Atinoua, they did more than just remove the word "often". They restored material about "both sides, soldiers and students," (which you said sounded like a false equivalence) in the introduction section and CIA funding in the Funding and Support section. I am not sure if you missed those edits, but now that you are in any case aware of them, can you please inform him that their edits goes against consensus. I am a little hesitant to do it myself because I feel like with their open defiance of consensus, we are now wading into edit warring territory which is the last place I want to get entangled in. Politixsperson (talk) 03:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious, why do you think adding "unsuccessful" is clearer? Isn't it clear that the attempts were unsuccessful?

And thanks, I did not see all the reversions. I'll look over them. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

According to WP:Consensus, "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal." My concerns are not being addressed in the suggestion presented at the moment, and we should work together to build a consensus. Atinoua (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Atinoua It's non-binding, so you are free to take the discussion to RfC, dispute resolution noticeboard, or elsewhere. However, these have discussed thoroughly, your concernes have been addressed to the best of our ability, and your continued reverts will break the three revert rule first, and thus you will be edit warring. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The change being made is being done without consensus. If someone continues to make the change without proper consensus, it would be edit warring. The concerns must be addressed and we must come to a consensus before a change can be made. According to WP:NOTDEMOCRACY consensus is required. If there is evidence that the Vancouver Sun article has incorrect evidence, then we can work towards making that change, but we also should adhere to "not choose which [source] is "true" and discard the others as incorrect". Additionally, according to WP:3O, "this is non-binding, the second editor is free to ignore the third opinion if they wish to." Although I am not ignoring your opinion, it does mean that the 3rd opinion does not mean consensus. We should work together to create a consensus rather than making changes without consensus and accusing me of edit warring when I revert it. Can you please respond to the points I brought in this message regarding the Vancouver Sun article, as well as the previous ones regarding the evidence and need for the word "often" to be included?

1. Additionally, when re-adding the content (that there is no consensus on for including), you argue that this is not a NPOV problem.
2. But according to WP:NPOV, "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
3. You also call this text a "conspiracy theory": "The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) maintained a network of informants among the student activists and actively aided them in forming the anti-government movement, providing them various equipment including typewriters and fax machines according to a U.S. official."
4. So, is this a conspiracy theory? What evidence is there that the CIA aided the students? The evidence, which is shown here, is from the Vancouver Sun, which is not a fringe, conspiracy theory newspaper.
5. Therefore, by not including this information, it violates WP:NPOV.

You also made the claim that including this violates WP:EXCEPTIONAL. How exactly?

1. The argument is this: By including this information, it will "“significantly alter mainstream assumptions” that the protest movement was organic and that the crackdown was not justified" but there is no mainstream assumption being changed. Does the US not aid other countries and their struggles? Is the purpose of the CIA not to "gather, process, and analyze national security information from around the world, primarily through the use of human intelligence (HUMINT) and conduct covert action through its Directorate of Operations"? The mainstream assumption is that the CIA is involved in other countries' affairs and this evidence is a specific example of that.
2. There is also the point that this including this sentence means the protest was not organic, but that is not shown in the evidence or in the current edit.

There are also some processes in WP:3O that are not being followed.

1. "Third opinions must be neutral." It is not neutral to call a reliable source a "conspiracy theory".
2. "Remember that Wikipedia works by consensus, not a vote." You agreeing with my position, or their position, is not enough for a change to be made. It must be made through consensus.
3. "Provide the reasoning behind your argument." When I asked you to please provide an explanation for why you agreed with their position, you responded with "I did read everything you wrote, and everything the other editor wrote, and agree with the other editor on those points. What does it add to have me repeat what they said?" You did not give your reasoning for your argument.

You also are saying that there is a consensus on the talk page, but no consensus has been reached. I need to stress that we need to reach a consensus in order for a change to be made. But the change is being made without any of my concerns being addressed. Please do not continue edit warring and look to reach a consensus on the talk page. I want to improve our article just as you do, but disagreements should be resolved through consensus on the talk page, not through edit warring. Please continue discussion on the talk page. Atinoua (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

We're not ever going to reach a consensus if you insist that others address each point you make on numerous points, and then address your rebuttal, and so on and so on. Two editors have been going back and forth on these points for some time. A 3O was called. I cam in and read the very thorough arguments from each side. Now, you're insisting that I rehash every single point and sub-point that was already discussed ad nauseam above. That is unreasonable. WP:COMPETENCE is required, and if you cannot see how one scan of a partial newspaper page is not enough to justify inclusion that the CIA planted agents in the protestors and supplied them with their tech, thus changing the entire perception of the conflict, then perhaps you do not understand Wikipedia editing guidelines enough to be editing on this controversial topic.

You can seek further independent input in a variety of ways, which I mentioned. But you should do it bit by bit, not in a WP:WALL of text addressing multiple, unrelated things. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 06:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

We can reach a consensus if we listen to each other's concerns, and make suggestions to improve the article. All I am asking is for you to provide an explanation for your argument and accusations made against me. This is not the same as insisting you rehash every point listed above.

The evidence I provided in not simply "one scan of a partial newspaper page". It is from a newspaper that, as far as I have looked, is reliable. Again, if there's any evidence disproving this newspaper, that would help to continue the discussion forward. How exactly would the entire perception of the conflict change if the CIA were to have supplied the protestors with tech? The common perception of the CIA is that it "conducts covert action". This source does not say anything about the independence of the movement itself and neither does the article before the edit.

My last message included numerous bullet points, bit by bit, so that it can be easily read and responded to. Everything there is relevant to the situation. I am trying my best to assume good faith and work towards a consensus.

To be clear, at the moment, I would like for you to please respond to my above points regarding:

1. The use of the word "often"
2. The claim of violation of WP:EXCEPTIONAL
3. The violation of WP:NPOV

Atinoua (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper Because it removes any ambiguity in our understanding of the hardline positions the protesters and governments took. Without describing the negotiation attempts as unsuccessful, there is a chance the reader might come away thinking the negotiations were partially successful and that the actions of the government were the product of decisions made by rogue elements of the state.

I see on the main article that while you addressed the CIA issue, you did not do the same with the "both sides, soldiers and students" one in the introduction section. What is your opinion on what should be done here? My suggestion was to combine the third and fourth paragraphs of the introductory section that we have right into one section but this was reverted by Atinoua. Just in case you may be confused, this is what I wrote

As the protests developed, the authorities responded with both conciliatory and hardline tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership.[10] By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support around the country for the demonstrators, and the protests spread to some 400 cities.[11] In response, the State Council declared martial law on May 20[11] and on June 2, the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee on June 2 made the decision to use military force to clear the square, leading to clashes between the military and demonstrators.[12][13][14] Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded.[15][16][17][18][19][20] Politixsperson (talk) 11:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

In an attempt to build a consensus, I had suggested this change:

As the protests developed, the authorities responded with both conciliatory and hardline tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership. By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support around the country for the demonstrators, and the protests spread to some 400 cities. In response, the State Council declared martial law on 20 May however, the troops had pulled back to the suburbs that same day. After several weeks of standoffs and violent confrontations between the army and demonstrators left many on both sides severely injured, the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee held a meeting and declared martial law again on 2 June to clear the square. The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June and engaged in bloody clashes with demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded.

The event had both short and long term consequences. Various Western media outlets labeled the crackdown a "massacre" and Western countries imposed an arms embargo on China in response to the crackdown which remains in force today. In the aftermath of the protests, the Chinese government suppressed other protests around China, carried out mass arrests of protesters which catalyzed Operation Yellowbird, strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic and foreign affiliated press, and demoted or purged officials it deemed sympathetic to the protests.

From reviewing our conversation, the only issue you had with this was this:

Various Western media outlets labeled the crackdown a "massacre".

Am I correct? Atinoua (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

@Atinoua No, I also take issue with this part: After several weeks of standoffs and violent confrontations between the army and demonstrators left many on both sides severely injured, the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee held a meeting and declared martial law again on 2 June to clear the square. The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June and engaged in bloody clashes with demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded.

As @Politixsperson stated, and as I agreed earlier, this places undue emphasis on the protestors, and creates a false equivalence. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree that it might create a false equivalence. We should work to fix that. There cannot be undue weight. It's also important to clarify that the troops pulled back on the same day (May 20) so that the reader doesn't get the impression that there was martial law from May 20 until June 4. Another important thing I believe should be retained is this: "demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded." This helps give the reasoning (not to be confused with justification) for the deaths that occurred. I'm also open to the idea to give the estimated number of deaths on both sides to help give proper weight to avoid a false equivalence, but that might be too much detail for the lead. What are your thoughts? Atinoua (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think if the soldiers are included in any sentence about the deaths, then the relative numbers must be present, since we're talking about a dozen or so soldiers, who are the aggressors here, vs many hundreds or thousands of protesters and bystanders. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Atinoua (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That's progress! What about

"...in which many people were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded. The vast majority of those killed were civilians, though a small number of soldiers also died."

Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. We need to wait for Politixsperson's response though before making the change to make sure there's a consensus. Is that the only thing we would be changing in this edit? Would we maintain the part about the troops pulling back to the suburbs on the same day, and the demonstrators attempting to block the military? Atinoua (talk) 18:19, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Tagging @Politixsperson. For the stuff you mentioned, I say no, it's not needed for the lead. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with everything that Pyrrho the Skipper has said and it seems we have a consensus to implement the following: As the protests developed, the authorities responded with both conciliatory and hardline tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership.[10] By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support around the country for the demonstrators, and the protests spread to some 400 cities.[11] In response, the State Council declared martial law on May 20[11] and on June 2, the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee on June 2 made the decision to use military force to clear the square, leading to clashes between the military and demonstrators.[12][13][14] Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded. The vast majority of those killed were civilians, though a small number of soldiers also died.[15][16][17][18][19][20]

In addition, Pyrrho the Skipper there are two things I think I should draw your attention to. First, it looks like in your discussion with Atinoua, you forgot to address the one we had about whether or not to include the description of the negotiation attempts between the protesters and government as unsuccessful. The second is on the main article where Atinoua has reverted you even though you had warned them not to and they reported you for edit warring. Unless they change their attitude and approach, I do not believe we can have a serious and productive conversation with them. Since you have been on Wikipedia much longer than I have and presumably would have more experience dealing with editors like this, I will leave it up to you to decide how we should proceed in our dealings with Atinoua. Politixsperson (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Politixsperson, I have tried my best to engage in good faith discussion and I don't see how your accusations of me being unproductive and unserious are warranted. Every comment you have made, I have taken seriously, and I tried my best to respond fairly. If you look at the history of our discussions, you will see that I have made many compromises and concessions for you.

Your rationality for saying this is that I had reverted an edit you had made, but the only reason I had made that reversion is because we are still discussing the nuances of what should be changed and have yet to come to a consensus.

You should already know this considering on another one of my suggestions, you had written: "Do not put that sentence in before you have got the consensus to do so. I will remove it if you do." And I did not try to brute force the suggestion. Why? Because there was no consensus yet for it. I hope that you will please consider these things. Atinoua (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Politixsperson as it sounded like you agreed with the portion we were discussing, I added that one portion. It looks like you suggested a longer rewrite, which will need to be a seperate discussion. We need to do this one edit at a time, or else we will get stuck on splitting hairs across a major revision to content and never move forward. As for Atinoua's editing behavior, I'm going to give them a chance to help build consensus. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper It is a shorter, not a longer rewrite. I am combining two paragraphs into one. When I said I agreed with what you were saying, I meant agreeing to the bolded portion that you suggested and obviously not the rest of the paragraph that Atinoua suggested. Stuff like "After several weeks of standoffs and violent confrontations between the army and demonstrators left many on both sides severely injured," and "demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed" are clear attempts at false equivalence which we both agree has to go. Politixsperson (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Atinoua You have repeatedly restored the word "often" and CIA funding information back into the article despite the third opinion consensus between me and Pyrrho to remove them. Please stop Politixsperson (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a consensus between you and Pyrrho, but you aren't the only editors. Therefore there is no consensus. You need to achieve a consensus (not just an agreement between 2 editors) before making a change. Atinoua (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I believe that we should include information about how the troops pulled back to the suburbs on the same day. It continues to show the nuance in the extent to which the government restrained themselves with martial law prior to when the hardliners won on June 3. I also believe we should include the details about how the advancement to the square was blocked and therefore they used violence. That being said, your suggestion to ensure there is not a false equivalence makes sense so I believe that should be included as well. What are both of your thoughts on this?

In response, the State Council declared martial law on 20 May however, the troops had pulled back to the suburbs that same day. After several weeks of standoffs and violent confrontations between the army and demonstrators left many on both sides severely injured, the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee held a meeting and declared martial law again on 2 June to clear the square. The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June and engaged in bloody clashes with demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded. The vast majority of those killed were civilians, though a small number of soldiers also died.

Atinoua (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Pyrrho the Skipper, for the most recent change you made, can our article instead be how the suggestion I most recently made reads? I believe it's the best resolution to solve both of our concerns. Atinoua (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Atinoua Hold on now, you already agreed to that small portion I suggested, and Politixsperson also agreed. Discussions of other edits can be made separately. Please start a new section on the Talk Page for additional edits you want, and we'll go from there. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, I had agreed that if we were to include "demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed."

That we should also include: "The vast majority of those killed were civilians, though a small number of soldiers also died."

To be crystal clear, the thing you had written which I agreed to was this: "I think if the soldiers are included in any sentence about the deaths, then the relative numbers must be present." Atinoua (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Atinoua

I said:

That's progress! What about "...in which many people were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded. The vast majority of those killed were civilians, though a small number of soldiers also died."

To which you replied:

That's a good suggestion. We need to wait for Politixsperson's response though before making the change to make sure there's a consensus. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct. My understanding was that you were building off of the suggestion I had presented directly above. Can we have this compromise? Atinoua (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I haven't previously been involved and maybe I can help you too move forward. The text " "...in which many people were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded. The vast majority of those killed were civilians, though a small number of soldiers also died." is good. I would further suggest keeping the ways of describing death consistent (i.e. if civilians "were killed" you should note that the comparatively small number of soldiers also "were killed" not "died"). JArthur1984 (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

You make a really good point that the edit should maintain consistent language. I also believe that we should not remove " – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers –" from the article because it clarifies that there were different groups that participated (or didn't participate) that were affected by the events. Atinoua (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

We already have consensus from the 3o discussion your "language" about demonstrators and soldiers is unacceptable. Politixsperson (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

There's a consensus that there should not be a false equivalence. Which isn't something that I had written by the way, it's not "my" language. There isn't a consensus yet about what that change should be. We should work together to come to a consensus. Atinoua (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Atinoua As I've said before, please start a new section for a new edit. We want more editors involved, but we have gone way beyond what they will be capable of reading. Each edit MUST have its own section on the talk page. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 14:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

For every change that I want to make, I have made a new section, and I will continue to do so. However, if I start a new one for my suggestion which compromises both of our suggestions, I don't want that to therefore solidify the most recent change you've made since that change was based on a misunderstanding. Does that make sense? Atinoua (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No, @Atinoua the most recent change I made was agreed upon by all of us. Wikipedia progresses through incremental edits. If you want another change made to that section, start a completely new section on the Talk page, separate entirely. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I had written this above but it must have been missed: My understanding was that you were building off of the suggestion I had presented directly above the suggestion that you had made. To be crystal clear, the article as it currently stands is not one that I agree with.

Atinoua (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

False equivalence

Pyrrho the Skipper in line with what we agreed to in the 3o discussion and your ask for clarity, I suggest the current paragraph After several weeks of standoffs and violent confrontations between the army and demonstrators left many on both sides severely injured, the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee held a meeting and declared martial law again on 2 June to clear the square. The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June and engaged in bloody clashes with demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded. The vast majority of those killed were civilians, though a small number of soldiers also died. be changed to

In response, the State Council declared martial law on May 20[11] and on June 2, the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee on June 2 made the decision to use military force to clear the square, leading to clashes between the military and demonstrators.[12][13][14] Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded. The vast majority of those killed were civilians, though a small number of soldiers also died.[15][16][17][18][19][20]

The change removes the false equivalence by taking the focus away from the demonstrators - we both agreed that it is not necessary to include the part about the demonstrators attempting to block the military. My suggestion simply replaces that part with a simple description that there were clashes between the protesters and military, which we both appear to agree is the best way to maintain neutrality. Politixsperson (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

This change has some improvements, and some problems, but I believe it can be improved further. There are 5 total notes I make here. 2 in the first point and 3 in the second point. The third point is just my suggestion in one full, and uninterrupted paragraph so that it is easy for you guys to read.

1. I believe this sentence could lead readers to an inaccurate conclusion. "In response, the State Council declared martial law on May 20[11] and on June 2..." The first problem that I have is that it will make the reader view martial law as beginning on May 20, and the occupation lasting all the way to June 2. The second problem is that the declaration of martial law on May 20 was virtually immediately reversed. My solution to this would be to have the sentence read this: "In response, the State Council declared martial law on May 20[11] however, the troops had pulled back to the suburbs that same day. On June 2..."
2. I believe this sentence lacks important details. "...leading to clashes between the military and demonstrators." I would maintain the original article's text which reads "The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June and engaged in bloody clashes with demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed." This provides the important details about the reasoning (again, not justification) for the deaths that occurred. The reader will have a better understanding of history if the reasoning for the action is presented. On the same point, but another note, the reason you had written for changing this sentence in the first place was because of false equivalence, and we all agree (consensus) that it should change. Pyrrho the Skipper suggested "Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded. The vast majority of those killed were civilians, though a small number of soldiers also died." which is good, and JArthur1984 improved (by maintaining consistent language) on that by suggesting "Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded. The vast majority of those killed were civilians, though a small number of soldiers were also killed." On a third note, by including "demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers" it clarifies that there were different groups that participated (or didn't participate) that were affected by the events. There are worries of a false equivalence which is why this line was suggested by Pyrrho: "The vast majority of those killed were civilians, though a small number of soldiers also died."
3. Here is my suggestion written uninterrupted: "In response, the State Council declared martial law on May 20[11] however, the troops had pulled back to the suburbs that same day. On June 2, the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee made the decision to use military force to clear the square. The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June and engaged in bloody clashes with demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded. The vast majority of those killed were civilians, though a small number of soldiers were also killed." Atinoua (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

1. Martial law was not immediately reversed on the same day. Just because the soldiers pulled back to the suburbs does not mean that the martial law was reversed.
2. We have had this discussion a few times already. Your edit is saying since the path of the Chinese military to the square was blocked by the demonstrators, violence was used, but we can just as easily say the violence only occurred because the army made the decision to clear the square in the first place. It is better to simply say there were clashes between the protesters and military, leave it at that and let the reader go through the article themselves and come to their own conclusions as to why it happened and who is at fault. Politixsperson (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

   1. You're right. I made an error here. It's important though to clarify that troops were not occupying the square from May 20 to June 2.
   2. You're right again that we can say that "violence only occurred because the army made the decision to clear the square in the first place." but the clearing of the square wasn't necessarily violent. Shouldn't this distinction be made to avoid misconceptions? I'm not suggesting that we let the reader come to their own conclusions as to why it happened. I'm saying that we need to make sure the reader does not have misconceptions and to make sure they don't, we need to include the reasoning (not justification).
   3. I don't believe that it's our job to assign responsibility for who is at fault. Atinoua (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"but the clearing of the square wasn't necessarily violent." I think the vast majority of sources would disagree with you. Politixsperson (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you please show me some sources then? What I'm seeing says that violence was used after protestors attempted to block the military advancement. Atinoua (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

All the sources in the "sources" section show that the decision to clear the square led to widespread violence, which is evident from just the title that some of them use. "Revolution and repression in Tiananmen square", "Olympic hopeful who lost his legs in Tiananmen Square", "Quelling the People: The Military Suppression of the Beijing Democracy Movement." Politixsperson (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The decision to clear the square led to widespread violence. What I'm asking though is sources that the clearing of the square was necessarily violent. From what I have seen, there aren't any sources that say this. Atinoua (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

That is what the sources are saying. They are saying the event (which includes the clearing of the square) was violent which is obvious from just the choice of words the authors use for the title of their work. Suppression, lost legs, quell, etc. If you disagree, then you need to present sources which say the clearing was not violent. Politixsperson (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that there was not suppression, lost legs, quell, etc. I am asking you to please provide a source that the clearing of the square (and the violence in Beijing that night) was necessary by the declaration of martial law. I'm arguing that the clearing of the square wasn't necessarily violent. In other words, it didn't have to be violent. Martial law only means military occupation. It doesn't mean death. So the question arises why people were killed. Atinoua (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"I'm arguing that the clearing of the square wasn't necessarily violent." Then please provide sources which say or support this view as this is your assertion. If you aren't going to, then there isn't much of a point for me to carry on responding to you. Politixsperson (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

In The Gate of Heavenly Peace, there is a broadcast of Chinese television where the following words are spoken by a news anchor: "Emergency Announcement of the Martial Law Enforcement Troops. Martial law units will take all necessary measures. Those who incite opposition must take the consequences." There is also this evidence where a soldier says: "They ordered us to carry out martial law and arrive at Tiananmen Square on the morning of June 4 at all costs". This evidence shows that the goal was not to use violence, but to occupy the square. If there is any evidence that the clearing of the square was necessarily violent, please provide the evidence. The evidence you've provided so far was that there was violence, which is something I agree with. Atinoua (talk) 18:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@Atinoua I much prefer @Politixsperson's version, as your version both overexplains details that are covered in the body and do not need to appear in the lead, and more importantly, completely whitewashes the massacre itself, by making it look like both sides were equally at fault and suffered equally. Since we're at a stalemate apparently, I sugges you either accept that you have no support for your edit, or we launch a request for comment to settle it. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain further why this "does not need to appear in the lead"? Having factually accurate information must be included. And the information is so important because the logic behind the violence is written here.

Can you explain further how it "completely whitewashes the massacre itself by making it look like both sides were equally at fault and suffereing equally?" I have agreed explicitly to having the paragraph end with "Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded. The vast majority of those killed were civilians, though a small number of soldiers were also killed." I need to understand the rationality for how this makes both sides appear equally at fault. Additionally, our job isn't to place blame. There should not be any reason for you to want to hide relevant facts.

We are not "at a stalemate". It is not me vs you. This is a group decision making process and we must work together to make changes to the article. To move discussion forward, can you please respond to the 5 different points I had made in my previous message?

If this proposed edit is not accepted, I am willing to work together to create something that there can be a consensus on. But that cannot happen if you refuse to engage in conversation about substantive points. Atinoua (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

"If this proposed edit is not accepted, I am willing to work together to create something that there can be a consensus on." There already is a consensus which is to implement my suggestion. We can still work together, but it will have to be on the condition that you accept the basic fact that the consensus is against you. Politixsperson (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

References

04:18, 14 October 2023‎ Edit

I accidentally published the change before finishing what I was writing, Hemiauchenia. I have written extensively on why I believe certain content should be maintained, why other content should be included, and why other content should not be included. And I am open to dialogue on the talk page. The problem is that some editors are trying to brute-force what they want into the article without achieving consensus for the change they want, while at the same time not engaging on the talk page. Atinoua (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

If other editors don't agree with your views, then there is no consensus. It's a bit ironic to claim that other editors are brute-forc[ing] what they want into the article without achieving consensus for the change they want when that appears to be exactly what you are doing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I have numbered my points so that they are easier to respond to.

1. Other editors have agreed with my views, see ADifferentMan's response when the changes being brute-forced into the article were originally suggested.

2. Just one (there are many) example of this is him saying: ""Mainstream" is extremely vague and very much open to interpretation, but the article is written by Vancouver Sun, an official Canadian newspaper, not some fringe author. If you think, for whatever reason, that this constitutes an unreliable source, you're free to open a discussion about it here [2]. Otherwise, you have no right to remove properly sourced content."

3. That being said, I am not trying to implement any changes in this context. It is another editor who wants to include content when there is no consensus to include that content.

4. When I make suggestions on ways the article can be improved, I wait for others to reply and if they don't agree, we have a conversation. I don't try and brute-force my suggestion into the article. There is no irony in that. Atinoua (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

18 December 2023

A read through of the fourth paragraph of the lead section reveals a couple of problems. There is no mention of how the event was condemned by countries and people outside the West and there is similarly no mention of how media outlets outside of the West labelled the event as a massacre. The combined effect of this disproportionate focus on the Western response leaves the reader with the impression that it was only the Western world which condemned the event as a massacre. Some of these points were discussed, but they were not fully addressed and then never revisited as the resolution of other apparently more pressing disagreements had the priority focus. As such, I am restarting those discussions with the hope that they will be brought to a conclusion here.

Here is the version of the paragraph that I would like to see replace the one that currently exists

The event had both short and long term consequences. It was condemned by the West, many members of the Eastern Bloc including the Soviet Union, some Asian and Latin American countries and many members of the Chinese diaspora. Western countries imposed arms embargoes on China which still remains in force today, and media outlets in both the West and non-West labeled the crackdown a massacre. In the aftermath of the protests, the Chinese government suppressed other protests around China, carried out mass arrests of protesters which catalyzed Operation Yellowbird, strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic and foreign affiliated press, and demoted or purged officials it deemed sympathetic to the protests. The government also invested heavily into creating more effective police riot control units. More broadly, the suppression ended the political reforms begun in 1986 and halted the policies of liberalization of the 1980s, which were only partly resumed after Deng Xiaoping's Southern Tour in 1992. Considered a watershed event, reaction to the protests set limits on political expression in China that have lasted up to the present day. The events remain one of the most sensitive and most widely censored topics in China.

If there are no objections, then I will make the appropriate adjustments. Politixsperson (talk) 07:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)