1989 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.
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 18, 2004.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This article was copy edited by Dhtwiki, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on November 4–15, 2020.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Section requsting for an edit: Gathering_momentum.
Please add in the association of outside organizations, specifically voice of america, for their contribution of providing communication between students.
[1]TheNoName749 (talk) 07:42, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The readership has continued to spike with nearly a million views yesterday, making it #2 in the top read. This is much more then before and it's not clear what's driving this. The Top 25 report previously suggested that it was associated with AI tools such as Manus. There was also a prominent HK court case in March.
@Andrew Davidson I'm seeing this as it's reached 2.1m views today. I'd say it's 100% botting seeing how abnormally much the view count is fluctuating. The view count per day is extremely inconsistent, ranging from 800k one day, to 200k the next. I assume someone, possibly an activist of some sort, wants to boost the publicity of the article. Cartler (talk) 14:00, 16 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I've been watching this over the last two+ weeks and was wondering what it was. I'm glad others noticed. Really bizarre. I wonder if it actually is boosting readership? Pranavrreddy (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a different opinion for the spike in readership. It would be because the Chinese ai tools like Manus and Deepseek would censor the information regarding this incident and it's been a trend in the recent times for the curious users to search for Chinese related incidents to check whether they give a proper output. So to cross check with the output given by the ai people will visit wikipedia page for verying that info. 007sak (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The current division of different people and groups into two "sides" by the infobox's Parties and Lead figures sections is misleading and in some cases inaccurate. There was huge division within the CCP and the various protesting groups (see #Preparing for dialogue for a brief and unsatisfying overview).
It is ridiculous to list Zhao Ziyang, the man who apologized to the students, lost his career, and spent the rest of his life in house arrest for his actions, on the same side as Li Peng. It is equally ridiculous to list the entire government, party, state council, army, and state police on one side when we have evidence (see this section for a start) that basically all of these institutions were heavily divided over how to respond.
I would delete both sections outright or open an RfC, but since I am guaranteed to be shouted down by partisans from both sides of the infobox wars, I'm just leaving this angry comment instead. Toadspike[Talk]19:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'll have to fail this nomination on a number of grounds. Most importantly, the nominator apparently has not edited this page prior and haven't started a talk page discussion on nominating the article, so it counts as a drive-by nomination. Such a nomination would almost certainly need talk-page discussion, even by a significant contributor. But moreover, the article still fails several important criteria:
Various uncited passages and paragraphs are spread throughout the article
Sources are inconsistently cited (it's unclear which sources belong in the bibliography using sfns, and which are just cited directly; I assume it's haphazard atm. Additionally, different fields and linking are used for different sources, and some sources in the bibliography are not used at all) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)