Talk:1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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)