In this article on baidu, there is a gap between 1988 and 1999, why is there nothing about some kind of protest that everyone keeps telling me about?
Edit: Thank you for responding, you have taught me a great deal about the usage and necessity of propaganda, counter-propaganda and censorship in a Marxist-Leninist state like China. Although some relied upon lies and insults as a means of trying to win an argunent, I got actual contentful theoretical education out of this, thanks.
Here is ProleWiki’s article.
It might not be mentioned because, although there were protests in the square, all deaths were in streets near the square instead of in the square itself.
Most of the sources there cant be verified, don’t exist or contradict the article
Examples:
Don’t exist: [2] https://www.mango-press.com/the-tiananmen-square-massacre-the-wests-most-persuasive-most-pervasive-lie/
Can’t be verified: [1] Vancouver Sun, article written in a google doc, authenthiticity can’t be proven, source of source in bottom is a link that doest not work.
Contradicts the Prolewiki article: [13] CBS News,
Quote: “But there’s no question many people were killed by the army that night around Tiananmen Square, and on the way to it — mostly in the western part of Beijing. Maybe, for some, comfort can be taken in the fact that the government denies that, too.”
Hyperlink in quote leads to dead page, so archived link: https://web.archive.org/web/20090606124946/https://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/04/world/worldwatch/entry5061564.shtm l: "We could hear shooting. A large group of students and civilians at this corner of Tiananmen Square were facing lines of soldiers.
We could see burning vehicles on the Square and we tried to approach discreetly, but were told the soldiers would certainly shoot."
Quote from ProleWiki article: “Around 5:00 am on June 4, the 3,000 remaining protestors peacefully left the square. No one died in the square during or after the protests and most deaths were caused by the foreign-backed faction of students.”
You see? The sources are very bad, their contents also twisted around, like in [13]; the source was used to “proof” that “[n]o one died in the square […]” and “[…] deaths were caused by the foreign-backed faction […]”. If you would use this kind of sourcing in any scientific work, everyone would laugh at you.
Don’t let yourself be blinded by the ‘truth’ that sounds the most comforting
The mango press article was available up until at least June of this year. It was retrieved last year. This shouldn’t be news to you. You clearly show knowledge of archive.org by using it, so I don’t understand why you have to point that out, when you can check if it was available and now isn’t?
The CBS news article is a recounting of one person telling their story of Tianamen. It links, for whatever reason, to another different persons telling of their story.
