The army was well experienced and armed unlike the ones sent on May 20 that was reluctant to put down the students(Spence 1999, 701).* In his press conference of the 5th, announcing sanctions on Communist China in the face of threats to do the same from US Senator, Jesse Helms, President Bush also suggested intelligence he had received concerning not only some disunity in the military ranks, and even the possibility of some military on military clashes during those days, but that these units were brought in from outside provinces because the local PLA were considered to be somewhat sympathetic to the protest and the people of the city. The 27th Army was led by a commander related to Yang Shankun. Soldiers and tanks from the 27th and 28th Armies of the People's Liberation Army were sent to take control of the city. Sigrid 22:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC) This is incorrect I am putting the first paragraph back in, because its fact. I'm going to offer extra credit to my students if they help add citations. The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 17:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC) I took out "bravely." Just fix what you see when you see it. Fightindaman 21:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC) I can find more POV remarks though. The American/Western (see: Response of Western Powers) involvement portions also reek of actual propaganda, if not inaccuracy, as though the West was responsible for 100k people gathering in a foreign land.Īn anon editor keeps making these changes. The term propaganda is used numerous times by the pro-PRC author/editor(s) on the article page, with nary a citation in sight. However the West still insists that nothing has changed, even though an immense change has taken place. It is clearly obvious that China is the world's next superpower and has changed a great deal since 1989. This is a propaganda still used by the West. Look at this one quote alone:Īt present, the Western world still uses this event, which occurred almost two decades ago to break down the Chinese unity. I cannot see how this article doesn't have the NPOV tag on it. sheesh Bob K 15:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Hugely POV, inaccurate, and lack of sources
whoever did the edits to this article either has a major problem or has a distinct propaganda intention. Does anybody else have a take on this? Fightindaman 02:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Wow. Obviously I think that if you're going to make claims like that it's going to have to be pretty-well documented. I've reverted this addition three times now twice it was unsourced, once it was only vaguely sourced with something that I could not locate. Until then I'll remove the reference to it. If you can find the picture again and give it the correct copyright tag (and sourcing info) then it can be put back in. But the first picture has been deleted because someone listed it for deletion and the relevant info wasn't provided. Hydraton31 14:50, (UTC) I've moved the second picture to make it look a little better.
I am unsure how to fix these problems, can someone help? The picture under the section Crackdown does not appear and, if you click on it, apparently does not exist and under the section Future of Political Reforms, the picture of the broken bicycle and tank track obscure some text. WETA has a good program on this additionally the website has some good info. I think it belongs in ' Internet censorship in mainland China' rather than in this specific article - the Tiananmen protests are censored like any number of other controversial topics. Should this be in the article? or perhaps under censorship, i dunno but i think people should be aware of this! "Estimates of civilian deaths vary: 23 (Communist Party of China), 400–800 (Central Intelligence Agency), 2600 (Chinese Red Cross)"Īppear in the article. "The resulting crackdown on the protestors by the PRC government left many civilians dead, the figure ranging from 200–300 (PRC government figures)"
12 Working for compromise on the issue of Yu Dongyue.10 Why delete paragraph on violence against PLA?.6 Hugely POV, inaccurate, and lack of sources.