Talk:People's Liberation Army at the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zscha004.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources

Why are the Wall Street Journal sources linked to proquest.com and not wsj.com? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 14:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Bias talk

These.. Well even the introduction appears at least somewhat biased. Of course considering the nature of its editors, what might you expect; but still neutrality is important. The bias here is strongly evident, especially because the Tiananmen Msxk isn't recognized like the Holocaust, for example, and isn't so much looked at from many different perspectives;. I feel that the entire page needs to be marked up with [Bias] marks or such. User:Cowgoesmoo2

The Talk Pages are biased, or you feel that not enough support for a horrendous massacre of innocent people by a brutal, ruthless regime in the main article is missing?

Wikileaks' documents show that no killing happened on the square itself

It was reported by London-based The Telegraph that wikileaks revealed documents claiming there was no mass-killing on Tiananmen square itself. Most of the killing took place outside the city center where dissidents attempted to halt the military advance towards downtown. There are 3 sources that back up this claim: Wikileaks in 2011, the account of Nicholas Kristof of New York Times in 1989, and the claim made by the Chinese government which is now corroborated by the previous 2 sources. All 3 sources are mentioned in e.g. this blogpost: http://panafricannews.blogspot.ch/2011/07/wikileaks-confirms-it-tiananmen-square.html

I'm aware that the blog alone cannot be considered a credible source, but it refers at least to The Telegraph and New York Times, both of which can be easily confirmed. Since I'm a newcomer to wiki I am not very adept at editing the main article, therefore I'd appreciate if someone could include this part of information in the main text. The best way to stay neutral and unbiased it to show information from all sides. 188.155.114.117 (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Strength" of belligerents in infobox

The infobox lists "strength" as "180,000-250,000 men". If Google Translate is leading me aright, the cited source asserts that's how many "PLA troops and armed police forces" were mobilized. What are the estimates of the size of the demonstrating crowd at the beginning of the clearing of the square, on the 3rd? Opinions will vary enormously, I'm sure, but something should be mentioned. The main article's relevant section just says "crowds of people". FourViolas (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Move discussion in progress

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 05:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

10,000 number

The 10,000 number has been revised by the original Alan Donald (who made the original claim) (in conjunction with former student leader and now dissident Feng Congde) to 2,700–3,400 deaths.

Also:
"I can only say that the prominence we currently lend Alan Donald is an insult to historical scholarship, not because the 10,000 figure ought to not be mentioned, but because it has been mentioned in numerous independent, and indeed anti-government sources, as not credible. To quote Brook (1998), p 169: "I remain as unconvinced by the official three hundred as I am by the extravagant 10,000. As always, the truth lies somewhere in between.... the Red Cross figure of 2,600 early Sunday morning comes closer than any other estimate..." Brook additionally mentioned three other sources that gave figures higher than 2,600, including a protester who witnessed the killings, who said the figure is "at least 10,000", and a Dutch journalist who estimated 6,000. He goes on to conclude that these are unrealistic estimates after perusing through extremely detailed hospital records in addition to a lengthy analysis on concealed burials by family members of the dead or hasty cremation by the army itself. If we are insisting on including 10,000 as a "high estimate" for the sake of balance, I suggest giving perspective that numerous sources close to the events reported the figure as such - based on their own opinions and speculation after merely visually witnessing the events on the morning of June 4, and not as a result of any sort of systematic, methodical verification (the sort that Brook himself had done). As 'minimizing' the figures, killing 2,600 is no less reprehensible than killing 10,000. Our job here is to report things as they were reported by reputable secondary sources." (quote by user Colipon (talk · contribs))

So, do not add 10,000 as "estimate deaths" as it recently was --Havsjö (talk) 08:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Casualities

Wu Renhua's claims about casualities are from a blog, not WP:RS, shouldn't be written as facts. AAAAA143222 (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Martial law declared: May 19 or May 20?

Two different sections contradict each other. In place, the article says martial law was declared on May 19; in another, May 20. Is the discrepancy about when martial law was declared (Li Peng's May 19 speech) vs. when it was actually put into effect (Li signing the orders on the 20th)? The article should clarify this. 2001:B011:1006:BD42:5C7A:3D8:80CA:9769 (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Tank Man

How can there even be an article about the Tiananmen Square protests without even a mention of the so called "Tank Man" The individual who stood in front of a column of PLA tanks and held them up. It is a world wide famous photo and video, and for it to not be mentioned indicates that either there is some serious editing of this page going on whenever it is mentioned, or people just do not remember history. Sometimes called "the unknown rebel" Time magazine included the "Unknown Rebel" in a feature titled "Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century" There is even a Wikipedia page just on him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man How is this not included. Maomatt (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

because this article is not the general article on the Tiananmen incident - this addresses the PLA role - there are links to many articles about the protests HammerFilmFan (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment and understand the specific nature of the page, but also feel that to leave this out is obscuring the full effect of the PLA movements and actions in regards to global reaction. I feel that there should be at least a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man in a "see also" section at the bottom of the article. Maomatt (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)