This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in China may be able to help! |
added a few sources, but more fact checking is required for this article. also can someone move the references to the bottom of the article? not sure how to do that. -- Bgnuf ( talk) 02:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The expansive paragraph of Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989 should be deleted, as well as the "tank man" photo. There are reports that people commonly go to the article to find information regarding the 1989 protest; however, no evidence is presented for such a finding, and it can be equally argued people are surfing to the article for the 1976 protest. In arguendo, even if most people are coming to the page to find additional information on the 1989 protest, there already exists an article and a link to said protest, making the paragraph redundant. Moreover, the picture of "tank man" did not occur in tiananmen square, but in the surrounding streets. I recommend the paragraph and photo be removed as repetitive and not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.213.129 ( talk) 15:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
i feel it's relevant because i was looking for the tianamen square protest, and the tank picture (explaination of what it was all about) and this is the first article i found when searching for tiananmen square. i'm sure most other young people who are trying to read about history are ending up at the same place. seems kind of important that to many people the big events there, or on the streets that sorround it be presented on this page. 24.218.138.87 ( talk) 17:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm queuing this pic on the talk page because there is not enough space in the article for now. — Chameleon Main/ Talk/ Images 13:59, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Note the new gallery layout - please do not remove pictures only for layout purposes. Leonard G. 17:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please transfer the images to Wikimidea Commons. -- Saperaud 3 July 2005 11:53 (UTC)
Can anybody confirm that this square is the largest in the world? Naghsh-i Jahan Square and Kharkov contain conflicting information on this issue. Thanks. -- Ghirlandajo 12:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
CTS Tours Australia brochure quotes it as the largest square in the world- could this be true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safari locust333 ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The List of city squares by size states that it is the 4th largest square, should we change the article? 151.230.169.226 ( talk) 11:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Is it really rational to think that most people searching for "tienanmen" are looking for information about the square rather than the details surrounding the tienanmen massacre of 1989? wouldn't it make more sense for the redirect from "tienanmen" to point there instead? Mysticfeline 01:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Though the square as an actual location should be the focus of the article, a picture or greater referance to the picture of the uknown rebel, the person himself, and the events surrounding it should be added because, despite what some may say, many (myself included as I was looking for the picture of the unknown rebel when I came to this page) people come to this page looking for that information first. Though there is a separate page of it, which is reasonable, a greater mention of it here would probably be warrented since this is often, outside of China, what the location is known for.
-- seconded: I came here looking for that image, I couldn't care less about the architectural features of the square!
If you're talking about the person who stood in front of the tank, it's probably not that noteworthy as everyone knows there's not that much danger in standing directly in front of a tank. The danger lies in standing in front of a tank's tracks. Notice the "rebel" keeps in front of the tank.
A grand gesture, to be sure, but one that caught an unwarranted amount of press, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.160.175 ( talk) 07:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a deliberate effort to water down the content of this article (such as removal of the word "masacre" despite this being the most common term used for this event in the west). I strongly suspect Chinese government sock-puppets might be involved--perhaps in efforts to clean up their image for the upcomming olympics. I strongly suggest the Wikipedia leadership look into protecting this (and other politically sensative pages) and look into these "editors". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.127.56 ( talk) 05:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the following text added in Revision as of 2006-05-16 08:02:21
I see no support for this. Furthermore, at least part of it isn't true: the movement was active in several other Chinese cities at the same time.
With supporting attribution, this text or a variant might be reasonable. It does seem to have a POV. DHR 03:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's stop mincing words. The Chinese regime knows how damaging to its image the 1989 Tiananmen massacre remains to this day. Chinese government flunkies have clearly whitewashed this page of virtually any mention of the massacre. Are we seriously going to pretend that this is normal for an article about the location of a historical event? Are we going to pretend that is acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.61.81 ( talk) 23:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
SOME mention of this event recently by the government: "In rare comments made on Sunday, China's Defence Minister Wei Fenghe said the protests were "political turmoil that the central government needed to quell, which was the correct policy". BUT Tiananmen remains one of the most censored issues in an internet and social media environment that has become increasingly restrictive since Xi Jinping became president in 2012." https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/china-rises-30-years-tiananmen-crackdown-remains-taboo-190603075028075.html
I have removed the following statements (several times):
There is basically nothing truthful about this statement. Firstly, the Chinese govt does not deny that the protests and killings took place. Secondly, there is no video footage (that I am aware of, or cited by the anon editor) of a protestor being mown down by a tank - the editor is possibly referring to the footage of a man stopping a column of tanks. Thirdly, that event was recorded by a journalist, not a tourist photographer. Finally, the last statement is an attack on Wikipedia, not a genuine contribution.
On a side note, I feel what is presently presented here about the protests does have a slightly pro-PRC government slant. Perhaps the emphasis on the "no-one killed" story should be toned down? -- Sumple ( Talk) 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recap: Heavily armed troops moved on the square on the night of June 4, 1989. Under the orders of paramount leader Deng Xiaoping — and under the gaze of Mao Zedong's portrait — they shot hundreds of protesters, likely more than 2,000 in all. The exact number of victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre has never been known. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/china-remembering-tiananmen-wang-petricic-1.5160078 CNN: Hundreds of people were killed on June 4, 1989, as People's Liberation Army troops cracked down on pro-democracy protesters in and around Beijing's Tiananmen Square. Events will be held and speeches made to commemorate the massacre and those who died in cities around the world. ttps://www.cnn.com/2019/06/03/asia/tiananmen-june-4-china-censorship-intl/index.html BBC: How many people died in the protests? No-one knows for sure how many people were killed. At the end of June 1989, the Chinese government said 200 civilians and several dozen security personnel had died. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48445934
The move to Tiananmen Square (Beijing) has been undone because "Tiananmen Square" is well... the square. If you want the massacre, they would've typed in "Tiananmen Square Massacre" or something along those lines. The other article is prominently linked to anyway. enochlau ( talk) 03:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the correct spelling in modern Pinyin not Tian'anmen? See the guidelines on the subject. Wsbhopkin 15:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Wade-Giles have hyphens (or whatever those typographical marks are actually called) in it? "T'ian-an'men Kuang-chang" rather than the current spelling?
The square looks very naked. Are they planning to put in more stuff? Like, for example, greenery? 205.174.22.20 01:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually do hold your breath - Beijing is very polluted! The square looks better in 'real life', and the greenery would turn to dust very quickly, even if watered, due to the huge amount of people walking on it I think. Balfron 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to sort out the History section. A lot of nonsense words have been put in and it doesn't make any sense (1st paragraph). Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.249.215 ( talk) 21:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
Back in the 1970s-80s there were pictures of Marx, Lenin and Mao [and maybe Engels too] where the large picture of Mao is now by itself. Can anyone date when were these removed? Also I heard from a non-Chinese source that the locals called the pictures the 'Display on the Marxist-Leninist history of shaving.' Can anyone verify this very charming little insight into Chinese humour? 60.242.50.195 08:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think 1999 was the Qing dynasty. (history section)
I thought he died before 1989 (events section)
Perhaps it is not relevant, but the System of a Down song "Hypnotize" makes mention of the T square massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.19.12 ( talk) 06:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a deliberate effort to water down the content of this article (such as removal of the word "masacre" despite this being the most common term used for this event in the west). I strongly suspect Chinese government sock-puppets might be involved--perhaps in efforts to clean up their image for the upcomming olympics. I strongly suggest the Wikipedia leadership look into protecting this (and other politically sensative pages) and look into these "editors". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.127.56 ( talk) 05:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This article fails to note that this location was the scene of one of the largest state sanctioned massacres of unarmed civillions in a non-war confrontation in history. The entire article pussyfoots around it, even using weasel words to claim the massacre didn't exist because 'no one could verify there were dead bodies on the square ITSELF.'
On the 20th anniversary it appears that state sponsored clean up squads are rife perhaps, either way I'm marking this as NPOV until a more neutral wikipedian can balance this grisly massacre location's page out with a bit of objective reporting. 114.76.205.101 ( talk) 13:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the history section talks a little too much about Tiananmen Gate instead of the square. Can someone please fix up that section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.194.18 ( talk) 03:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe there is no evidence whatever of a massacre or of any deaths in Tiananmen Square during the student protests.
There were deaths of civilians and soldiers in the streets leading up to the square possibly as a result of civilians confronting the army,
Can anyone cite any reliable evidence for the massacre of civilians in Tiananmen Square? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.170.57 ( talk) 11:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
This page too strongly panders to the image Westerners have been spoon-fed since 1989 of a repressive and cruel Chinese Government. Tian'an'men Square has a bloody history, to be sure, but shouldn't the square's more peaceful moments be given more recognition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.150.12 ( talk) 08:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The grammar of the original Manchu ("abkai elhe obure duka") apparently makes this clear:
http://thechinabeat.blogspot.com/2008/06/gate-of-heavenly-pacification.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.170.90 ( talk) 02:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Do not use a blogspot site for proving something that contradicts every scholarly article. Regardless of the whole discussion in that blog post, Pacification is another word in today's chinese, and every chinese who hears Tiananmen thinks of Heavenly Peace. Languages develop, and so do our translations. If you want to write an article about the history of the name of the gate, please go ahead (edit: has already been made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen#Meaning_of_name). Otherwise, please also rename "Paris" to "Worksmentown" all over Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris#Etymology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.164.103 ( talk) 20:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
While I agree that the square has a long and varied history that needs mentioning; given the fame of the even, the lack of mention of the 1989 incident makes it look to an impartial, English-speaking, observer that it's been deliberately buried.
A search for popular English speaking news sites for "Tiananmen Square" brings the first result back as reports surrounding 1989. This to me shows that most people in the English speaking world will link "Tiananmen Square" with the events of 1989.
If you compare with say Reichstag_(building), which mentions the fire, or Oświęcim which links to the concentration camp, Colditz Castle which mentions the POW camp, it does seem odd that the only mention of the reason the square is famous internationally is buried deep in the article.
Googling for top results from major international English-speaking news channels
With that in mind, I think it's fair to say that June 4th 1989 should be mentioned in the header, either in text or as a link like Oświęcim
Paul Weaver ( talk) 19:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
No mention of the massacre in the History section? I came to this page for information about the event and didn't even see anything until I used fulltext search. The two sections should be merged, as it is now, the History section doesn't even mention the event. Or it should have it's own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.61.95.86 ( talk) 23:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, no massacre is mentioned.... virtually ALL of the 1989 stuff is gone... I think this section/page needs to be constantly looked at. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
60.177.28.166 (
talk)
10:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Somebody keeps removing and watering down the information about the Tiananmen Square massacre... It's not sanctioned by anyone at Wikipedia, so feel free to revert. Heptor talk 10:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tiananmen which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 05:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The infamous image of the tank man in the "Events" section was removed by Agtx due to the copyright concerns [1]. As stated in the the copyright notice on File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg, the use of this image in Wikipedia is considered fair use under the Copyright law of the United States. There is a discussion on the talk page of the image. Heptor ( talk) 11:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
The hatnote mentioning the massacre seems unnecessary, and designed to malign the subject.
Would we put a similar hatnote atop the page for Kent State University, etc.?
The trustees of Kent State would not like such a hatnote, for the same reason I'm writing this suggestion: because they know such hatnotes are obviously a way to malign the subject or stoke bad PR, albeit cleverly.
I suggest we should do this consistently, or not at all.
Personally I suggest "not at all" because if you open that can of worms, it'll divulge into countless examples designed to malign the subject of the article.
The inclusion of a hatnote should not serve a political agenda, whether it's maligning the USA with the examples above, or maligning China in this case.
In this case, the Chinese massacre fits naturally in the Events or History section, and it should be included there so readers can learn as much about the event as possible from unbiased sources. I support transparency around this massacre.
I can't think of any drawback to removing this hatnote either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbowler ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
The lede states that our lemma is “天安门” in Chinese, while the infobox has “天安门广场”. Since the latter agrees with the lemma of the Chinese article (as well as with my understanding), I will change the lede. ◅ Sebastian 07:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear, there was no massacre in Tiananmen Square. Even though Deng ordered crackdown by force, he was unable to carry out his own orders, (1). concerned with the western media and repercussions from the West; You can check with the foreign diplomats who were there at the time; (2). He needed the West to be able to take on his economic agenda. However with that being said, punishments for the protesters, e.g. Executions were carried out elsewhere throughout various cities behind closed doors until June, 1989. This was done for his love of China and above all, his party image, he didn’t want to be associated with corruption and or projected to have any ties or influence from the west….included family. Therefore when indicated by the article as massacres in Tiananmen Square is technically inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2BB0:3C80:D8B5:A865:29F2:B6F4 ( talk) 18:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
The mention of the “Tianamen Square Massacre” so often in the begin of the article is unnecessary. With the Colubine High School page, the massacre has no hatnote, and is kept to one sentence, the same should be applied here. NotRGBAgent ( talk) 13:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It is requested that a map or maps be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Wikipedians in China may be able to help! |
added a few sources, but more fact checking is required for this article. also can someone move the references to the bottom of the article? not sure how to do that. -- Bgnuf ( talk) 02:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
The expansive paragraph of Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989 should be deleted, as well as the "tank man" photo. There are reports that people commonly go to the article to find information regarding the 1989 protest; however, no evidence is presented for such a finding, and it can be equally argued people are surfing to the article for the 1976 protest. In arguendo, even if most people are coming to the page to find additional information on the 1989 protest, there already exists an article and a link to said protest, making the paragraph redundant. Moreover, the picture of "tank man" did not occur in tiananmen square, but in the surrounding streets. I recommend the paragraph and photo be removed as repetitive and not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.213.129 ( talk) 15:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
i feel it's relevant because i was looking for the tianamen square protest, and the tank picture (explaination of what it was all about) and this is the first article i found when searching for tiananmen square. i'm sure most other young people who are trying to read about history are ending up at the same place. seems kind of important that to many people the big events there, or on the streets that sorround it be presented on this page. 24.218.138.87 ( talk) 17:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm queuing this pic on the talk page because there is not enough space in the article for now. — Chameleon Main/ Talk/ Images 13:59, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Note the new gallery layout - please do not remove pictures only for layout purposes. Leonard G. 17:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Please transfer the images to Wikimidea Commons. -- Saperaud 3 July 2005 11:53 (UTC)
Can anybody confirm that this square is the largest in the world? Naghsh-i Jahan Square and Kharkov contain conflicting information on this issue. Thanks. -- Ghirlandajo 12:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
CTS Tours Australia brochure quotes it as the largest square in the world- could this be true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safari locust333 ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
The List of city squares by size states that it is the 4th largest square, should we change the article? 151.230.169.226 ( talk) 11:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Is it really rational to think that most people searching for "tienanmen" are looking for information about the square rather than the details surrounding the tienanmen massacre of 1989? wouldn't it make more sense for the redirect from "tienanmen" to point there instead? Mysticfeline 01:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Though the square as an actual location should be the focus of the article, a picture or greater referance to the picture of the uknown rebel, the person himself, and the events surrounding it should be added because, despite what some may say, many (myself included as I was looking for the picture of the unknown rebel when I came to this page) people come to this page looking for that information first. Though there is a separate page of it, which is reasonable, a greater mention of it here would probably be warrented since this is often, outside of China, what the location is known for.
-- seconded: I came here looking for that image, I couldn't care less about the architectural features of the square!
If you're talking about the person who stood in front of the tank, it's probably not that noteworthy as everyone knows there's not that much danger in standing directly in front of a tank. The danger lies in standing in front of a tank's tracks. Notice the "rebel" keeps in front of the tank.
A grand gesture, to be sure, but one that caught an unwarranted amount of press, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.244.160.175 ( talk) 07:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a deliberate effort to water down the content of this article (such as removal of the word "masacre" despite this being the most common term used for this event in the west). I strongly suspect Chinese government sock-puppets might be involved--perhaps in efforts to clean up their image for the upcomming olympics. I strongly suggest the Wikipedia leadership look into protecting this (and other politically sensative pages) and look into these "editors". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.127.56 ( talk) 05:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to remove the following text added in Revision as of 2006-05-16 08:02:21
I see no support for this. Furthermore, at least part of it isn't true: the movement was active in several other Chinese cities at the same time.
With supporting attribution, this text or a variant might be reasonable. It does seem to have a POV. DHR 03:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's stop mincing words. The Chinese regime knows how damaging to its image the 1989 Tiananmen massacre remains to this day. Chinese government flunkies have clearly whitewashed this page of virtually any mention of the massacre. Are we seriously going to pretend that this is normal for an article about the location of a historical event? Are we going to pretend that is acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.61.81 ( talk) 23:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
SOME mention of this event recently by the government: "In rare comments made on Sunday, China's Defence Minister Wei Fenghe said the protests were "political turmoil that the central government needed to quell, which was the correct policy". BUT Tiananmen remains one of the most censored issues in an internet and social media environment that has become increasingly restrictive since Xi Jinping became president in 2012." https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/china-rises-30-years-tiananmen-crackdown-remains-taboo-190603075028075.html
I have removed the following statements (several times):
There is basically nothing truthful about this statement. Firstly, the Chinese govt does not deny that the protests and killings took place. Secondly, there is no video footage (that I am aware of, or cited by the anon editor) of a protestor being mown down by a tank - the editor is possibly referring to the footage of a man stopping a column of tanks. Thirdly, that event was recorded by a journalist, not a tourist photographer. Finally, the last statement is an attack on Wikipedia, not a genuine contribution.
On a side note, I feel what is presently presented here about the protests does have a slightly pro-PRC government slant. Perhaps the emphasis on the "no-one killed" story should be toned down? -- Sumple ( Talk) 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recap: Heavily armed troops moved on the square on the night of June 4, 1989. Under the orders of paramount leader Deng Xiaoping — and under the gaze of Mao Zedong's portrait — they shot hundreds of protesters, likely more than 2,000 in all. The exact number of victims of the Tiananmen Square massacre has never been known. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/china-remembering-tiananmen-wang-petricic-1.5160078 CNN: Hundreds of people were killed on June 4, 1989, as People's Liberation Army troops cracked down on pro-democracy protesters in and around Beijing's Tiananmen Square. Events will be held and speeches made to commemorate the massacre and those who died in cities around the world. ttps://www.cnn.com/2019/06/03/asia/tiananmen-june-4-china-censorship-intl/index.html BBC: How many people died in the protests? No-one knows for sure how many people were killed. At the end of June 1989, the Chinese government said 200 civilians and several dozen security personnel had died. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48445934
The move to Tiananmen Square (Beijing) has been undone because "Tiananmen Square" is well... the square. If you want the massacre, they would've typed in "Tiananmen Square Massacre" or something along those lines. The other article is prominently linked to anyway. enochlau ( talk) 03:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Is the correct spelling in modern Pinyin not Tian'anmen? See the guidelines on the subject. Wsbhopkin 15:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Wade-Giles have hyphens (or whatever those typographical marks are actually called) in it? "T'ian-an'men Kuang-chang" rather than the current spelling?
The square looks very naked. Are they planning to put in more stuff? Like, for example, greenery? 205.174.22.20 01:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually do hold your breath - Beijing is very polluted! The square looks better in 'real life', and the greenery would turn to dust very quickly, even if watered, due to the huge amount of people walking on it I think. Balfron 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone needs to sort out the History section. A lot of nonsense words have been put in and it doesn't make any sense (1st paragraph). Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.153.249.215 ( talk) 21:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC).
Back in the 1970s-80s there were pictures of Marx, Lenin and Mao [and maybe Engels too] where the large picture of Mao is now by itself. Can anyone date when were these removed? Also I heard from a non-Chinese source that the locals called the pictures the 'Display on the Marxist-Leninist history of shaving.' Can anyone verify this very charming little insight into Chinese humour? 60.242.50.195 08:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think 1999 was the Qing dynasty. (history section)
I thought he died before 1989 (events section)
Perhaps it is not relevant, but the System of a Down song "Hypnotize" makes mention of the T square massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.94.19.12 ( talk) 06:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a deliberate effort to water down the content of this article (such as removal of the word "masacre" despite this being the most common term used for this event in the west). I strongly suspect Chinese government sock-puppets might be involved--perhaps in efforts to clean up their image for the upcomming olympics. I strongly suggest the Wikipedia leadership look into protecting this (and other politically sensative pages) and look into these "editors". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.127.56 ( talk) 05:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This article fails to note that this location was the scene of one of the largest state sanctioned massacres of unarmed civillions in a non-war confrontation in history. The entire article pussyfoots around it, even using weasel words to claim the massacre didn't exist because 'no one could verify there were dead bodies on the square ITSELF.'
On the 20th anniversary it appears that state sponsored clean up squads are rife perhaps, either way I'm marking this as NPOV until a more neutral wikipedian can balance this grisly massacre location's page out with a bit of objective reporting. 114.76.205.101 ( talk) 13:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the history section talks a little too much about Tiananmen Gate instead of the square. Can someone please fix up that section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.194.18 ( talk) 03:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe there is no evidence whatever of a massacre or of any deaths in Tiananmen Square during the student protests.
There were deaths of civilians and soldiers in the streets leading up to the square possibly as a result of civilians confronting the army,
Can anyone cite any reliable evidence for the massacre of civilians in Tiananmen Square? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.170.57 ( talk) 11:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
This page too strongly panders to the image Westerners have been spoon-fed since 1989 of a repressive and cruel Chinese Government. Tian'an'men Square has a bloody history, to be sure, but shouldn't the square's more peaceful moments be given more recognition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.150.12 ( talk) 08:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
The grammar of the original Manchu ("abkai elhe obure duka") apparently makes this clear:
http://thechinabeat.blogspot.com/2008/06/gate-of-heavenly-pacification.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.170.90 ( talk) 02:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Do not use a blogspot site for proving something that contradicts every scholarly article. Regardless of the whole discussion in that blog post, Pacification is another word in today's chinese, and every chinese who hears Tiananmen thinks of Heavenly Peace. Languages develop, and so do our translations. If you want to write an article about the history of the name of the gate, please go ahead (edit: has already been made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen#Meaning_of_name). Otherwise, please also rename "Paris" to "Worksmentown" all over Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris#Etymology — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.164.103 ( talk) 20:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
While I agree that the square has a long and varied history that needs mentioning; given the fame of the even, the lack of mention of the 1989 incident makes it look to an impartial, English-speaking, observer that it's been deliberately buried.
A search for popular English speaking news sites for "Tiananmen Square" brings the first result back as reports surrounding 1989. This to me shows that most people in the English speaking world will link "Tiananmen Square" with the events of 1989.
If you compare with say Reichstag_(building), which mentions the fire, or Oświęcim which links to the concentration camp, Colditz Castle which mentions the POW camp, it does seem odd that the only mention of the reason the square is famous internationally is buried deep in the article.
Googling for top results from major international English-speaking news channels
With that in mind, I think it's fair to say that June 4th 1989 should be mentioned in the header, either in text or as a link like Oświęcim
Paul Weaver ( talk) 19:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
No mention of the massacre in the History section? I came to this page for information about the event and didn't even see anything until I used fulltext search. The two sections should be merged, as it is now, the History section doesn't even mention the event. Or it should have it's own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.61.95.86 ( talk) 23:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, no massacre is mentioned.... virtually ALL of the 1989 stuff is gone... I think this section/page needs to be constantly looked at. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
60.177.28.166 (
talk)
10:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Somebody keeps removing and watering down the information about the Tiananmen Square massacre... It's not sanctioned by anyone at Wikipedia, so feel free to revert. Heptor talk 10:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tiananmen which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 05:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The infamous image of the tank man in the "Events" section was removed by Agtx due to the copyright concerns [1]. As stated in the the copyright notice on File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg, the use of this image in Wikipedia is considered fair use under the Copyright law of the United States. There is a discussion on the talk page of the image. Heptor ( talk) 11:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
The hatnote mentioning the massacre seems unnecessary, and designed to malign the subject.
Would we put a similar hatnote atop the page for Kent State University, etc.?
The trustees of Kent State would not like such a hatnote, for the same reason I'm writing this suggestion: because they know such hatnotes are obviously a way to malign the subject or stoke bad PR, albeit cleverly.
I suggest we should do this consistently, or not at all.
Personally I suggest "not at all" because if you open that can of worms, it'll divulge into countless examples designed to malign the subject of the article.
The inclusion of a hatnote should not serve a political agenda, whether it's maligning the USA with the examples above, or maligning China in this case.
In this case, the Chinese massacre fits naturally in the Events or History section, and it should be included there so readers can learn as much about the event as possible from unbiased sources. I support transparency around this massacre.
I can't think of any drawback to removing this hatnote either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbowler ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
The lede states that our lemma is “天安门” in Chinese, while the infobox has “天安门广场”. Since the latter agrees with the lemma of the Chinese article (as well as with my understanding), I will change the lede. ◅ Sebastian 07:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Just to be clear, there was no massacre in Tiananmen Square. Even though Deng ordered crackdown by force, he was unable to carry out his own orders, (1). concerned with the western media and repercussions from the West; You can check with the foreign diplomats who were there at the time; (2). He needed the West to be able to take on his economic agenda. However with that being said, punishments for the protesters, e.g. Executions were carried out elsewhere throughout various cities behind closed doors until June, 1989. This was done for his love of China and above all, his party image, he didn’t want to be associated with corruption and or projected to have any ties or influence from the west….included family. Therefore when indicated by the article as massacres in Tiananmen Square is technically inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2BB0:3C80:D8B5:A865:29F2:B6F4 ( talk) 18:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
The mention of the “Tianamen Square Massacre” so often in the begin of the article is unnecessary. With the Colubine High School page, the massacre has no hatnote, and is kept to one sentence, the same should be applied here. NotRGBAgent ( talk) 13:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)