Talk:1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 18, 2004.
Article milestones
April 7, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
May 30, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 15, 2004, June 4, 2004, June 4, 2005, June 4, 2006, June 4, 2007, June 4, 2009, June 4, 2012, June 4, 2014, June 4, 2017, and June 4, 2019.
Current status: Former featured article

Regarding "June Fourth Incident"[edit]

Is it fair to call the name "June Fourth Incident" a euphemism considering that's what the event is actually called in Chinese? Euphamism implies that it's a term only used to avoid using "Tiananmen Square Massacre", but even the Chinese Wikipedia page calls it the June Fourth Incident, with "Tiananmen Square Masscare/Protest" only mentioned when referring to western usage. I can personally atest that in Chinese circles outside China, such as in Taiwan or overseas, that "June Fourth Incident" is the main name used, and is not by any means a euphemism. Also, the sources attached to the word "euphemism" don't mention its usage as a euphemism, one of them doesn't refer to the name "June Fourth Incident" at all.

Perhaps instead of:

  • known by the euphemism June Fourth Incident (Chinese: 六四事件; pinyin: liùsì shìjiàn) in China,

there should be:

  • known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident (Chinese: 六四事件; pinyin: liùsì shìjiàn),

or maybe:

  • known in Chinese circles as...
  • known in China as...

TypeKnight03 (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is a euphemism. Chinese Wikipedia uses it because it is under the boot of the Chinese communist party.Peking Tom (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to have to disagree on that front. Firstly Chinese Wikipedia has no obligations towards the Chinese government, and hasn't ever since Wikipedia-CN was banned in China in 2004 (and it would be a violation of
WP:NPOV) and even so, other Chinese language sources such as this article from VOA (Which definitely does not bow to the CPC) use 64, as does this DW article, and this RFI article.
so unless you believe the state-owned press of America, Germany, and France all tow the CCP line, then we can only conclude that June Fourth incident/六四事件 is not a euphemism.
Also the sources attached to the first sentence still don't say anything about "June Fourth Incident" being a euphemism, just that it's an alternate term.
It would be nice for someone else to weigh in on this, but surely if "June Fourth Incident" were a euphemism, then it would get past censors right? But it doesn't. Why would a censored term be used as a censorship-avoidance euphemism?
TypeKnight03 (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because censors toe a harder line to the general public, they aren't willing to acknowledge in any way it happened. They arrest people for holding toy tanks on the wrong day, see what gets you arrested. "Others were stopped and searched for carrying flowers, wearing black and in one case, carrying a toy tank box." [1]. When police get their orders to do this around June fourth, I'm sure they use June fourth in their inner communications.Peking Tom (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Completely agree on this. Words have context, and context can affect meaning. In usage and in practice, "June Fourth incident" is not a euphemism, despite Westerners being likely to see it as such. DFlhb (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're all correct that "euphemism" is absolutely wrong, but is there a specific edit to be made here? I didn't see "euphemism" in the article. If I somehow missed it, or a similar statement, I agree we should certainly fix it. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Old comment but it's already been fixed. I still do think the sources for the name should be updated though. They seem to be relatively poor sources given how ubiquitous the names are.
TypeKnight03 (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, 六四事件 isn't a "euphemism". It's a common way of naming events that occur on a particular day in Chinese, in either the Western or traditional Chinese calender. See e.g. Double Tenth, Double Ninth Festival, Double Third Festival. Double Seventh Festival. June Fourth is only not used in English as "Tiananmen Square" has come to be associated with the incident, be a shortcut for it. (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2022[edit]


Changing "Video footage was smuggled out of the country, although the only network that was able to record video during the night of 4 June was Televisión Española of Spain (TVE)."


"Video footage was smuggled out of the country. The only network journalist that was able to record video during the night of 4 June and smuggle it out of China was José Luis Márquez Leon, for Televisión Española of Spain (TVE)."

Edit 2:

Credit him under the images that are his used in the webpage (the man standing in front of the tank being the most famous)

Goal and reasons of the edit:

-To credit José Luis Márquez Leon, the TVe reporter that managed to smuggle his images out, by including his name in the article. Beyond how important (and nuts)this action was, he is a well known figure in the world of war journalism. I added the "record and smuggle" instead of just "record", because getting the tape out involved him scaping custody and hiding in a truck full of corpses, so I thing it deserves to be recognized as it's own chore beyond just the filming. I changed "by Televisión Española of Spain" to "Televisión Española of Spain" because TVe was unaware of what Marquez was doing, and he did it without the rest of the TVe team involvement.

Sources and references: (ONG crediting his name regarding the images. In English) (interview commemorating Marquez's legacy. In Spanish) (Documentary of TVe about him and his career) Gosth and the quotes (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: This may be a good thing to get some additional opinions on from other editors but I don't believe it uncontroversial enough for an edit request. —Sirdog (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Resulting in"[edit]

In the side bar a bullet point says "Rioters charged with violent crimes where executed in the following months" yet under the main article heading "Arrests, punishments, evacuations" nothing is mentioned about capital punishment. The side-bar assertion should have some related discussion and references in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Does anyone else think that the massacre and the nationwide protest movement that preceded it are each notable enough for separate articles? Perhaps this article could be split into two articles titled Tiananmen Square Massacre and '89 Democracy Movement respectively. Charles Essie (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]