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 articles
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 articles
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This section seems to suggest that (a) the main issue between the Gang of Four and the moderates was ideology, rather than the struggle to succeed Mao; (b) Mao was able to be "consulted;" and (c) that Deng Xiaoping did not successfully escape and find a base from which to plot his return under the personal protection of General Xu Shiyou, commander of the Guangzhou Military Region but rather was somehow sentenced to house arrest. I believe all three are wrong. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It seems that this event, in 1976, is being conflated with the 1989 incident, at the end of the section headed "The Incident". At the end of that section the last sentence reads: "Deng Xiaoping was formally stripped of all positions "inside and outside the Party" on 7 April, following this "Tiananmen Massacre".[4]", where the WP link at the end of the sentence about the 1976 event takes the reader to the WP article on the 1989 incident.
Latest comment: 2 years ago32 comments15 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The merge seems reasonable, but I've reverted your change to the redirect. The title "Tiananmen Square Incident" is too ambiguous to identify a primary topic. If you disagree, it should probably be taken to WP:RFD. —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 11:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've reverted a premature move of this page per requests by 162 etc. and AjaxSmack at WP:RM/TR. @Jishiboka1: Please do not move a page while it is subject to a Requested Move discussion. Once seven days have passed and a consensus is clear, someone will close this discussion. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they)06:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
Move to 1976 Tiananmen protestor1976 Tiananmen Square protest as a more clear (and WP:NATURAL) identification of the topic. The current title is too ambiguous – most people would think the term refers to the 1989 incident. "April 5" without a year is too confusing and is misleading since the protest started on April 4 and "Up to two million people may have visited Tiananmen Square on 4 April"). "Incident" is vague and using uppercase for "Incident" is strange. It's better to pick a title that is more consistent with 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. The English Wikipedia should use a title that is understandable to English-language readers, and the term used to refer to it in Chinese doesn't matter as much. — BarrelProof (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
And in fact, per 力 below, if we can't agree to use one of my favorite titles, the proposed title Tiananmen Incident (1976) would at least be an improvement. I think some renaming of this article is needed. If necessary, there could be some secondary RM to consider other candidate titles. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
This RM is malformed The RM does not fully detail and consider the consequences of the proposed move per Colin M in part. There is no actual article title conflict between this article and the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. There is a DAB link (ie "For X see") at this article to Tiananmen Square Incident (disambiguation) but this is a circular redirect back to this article. The issue could potentially be resolved buy correcting the DAB link without a move. Both events are referred to commonly as "Tiananmen Square incident" per this ngram. Appropriate capitalisation is, however, an issue per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. However, "massacre" is not a neutral term and must satisfy WP:NPOVNAME that it is a proper name if we are to use it. This ngram strongly indicates that it doesn't. "Tiananmen incident" is not only likely the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but the best choice of article title per WP:AT. There is too much nuance to the question. Considering all of these issues, I am quite certain that the matter should first be addressed at 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre with a cross-notification here. For these reasons, I would state the this RM is malformed. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
"'Tiananmen incident' (regardless of spelling) primarily refers to the 1989 event." Not necessarily from the info in the ngram without perusal of the sources. A 1989 hit simply means the source came from 1989; it could have been about the 1976 event (like these). But I agree with you on the point; I put forth the the ngram link for the information of editors here and not to argue against a move. — AjaxSmack15:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
I don't see anything malformed about this RM. The proposed change is to move one article, Tiananmen Incident, to Tiananmen Incident (1976), asserting that the current title is an ambiguous term. What is malformed about that? If the topic of the current article is not a proper WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Tiananmen Incident", a hatnote is not sufficient to fix that problem. If you want to propose to also rename some other article(s), I suggest to submit an RM for the other changes that you propose. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
There is no actual article title conflict and no actual redirect conflict at this time. The only remedy required at present is to have the hat note at this article link to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre rather than being a circular redirect back to this article. The OP offers no evidence for the proposal, only an opinion. The OP has not disclosed the full consequences of the proposed move (intended or implied) and there has been no clarification to the opening question by Colin M that might resolve this. Consequently, editors cannot reasonably make an informed decision that fully considers the implications of the proposed move. There is also the issue of whether 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre satisfies WP:NPOVNAME (which was not raised in the recent RM there). It begs the question as to whether the 1989 event should be titled "Tiananmen Square incident"? This RM is being conducted without explicit notification to that page. For these reason, I would maintain that this RM is malformed and it is too late to remedy these issues. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
This is a WP:RM, not a WP:RfD. The only real question that we need to answer is what should be the title of this article. That's a simple question, and not malformed. The titles of other articles and the targets of redirects are different matters that can be discussed separately. The only question we really need to answer in this RM is whether the title of this article should be changed or not. If the title "Tiananmen Incident" is ambiguous (or improperly capitalized), that title should be changed. We don't need to decide whether to do a bunch of other things or not before we make that decision. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
While it could be decided via a separate RfD discussion, I think it would be ideal if this discussion could, in the event that there's consensus for a move, also establish consensus about whether there's a primary topic for Tiananmen Incident, since it's intimately related to the factors motivating the proposed move. A follow-up RfD would probably just involve rehashing a lot of the same evidence of usage which is being discussed here. I would encourage !voters supporting a move to be explicit about what they think should happen to the base name. (If nothing else, it will be helpful to the closer. They have to do something with the base name, and it's not obvious to me what the "default" fate should even be.) Colin M (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree. But I think we shouldn't let other questions get too tangled up in the discussion and become something that blocks a decision on the basic question posed by this RM, which is what the title of this one article should be. Calling the RM "malformed" does not help in evaluating the RM proposal, since this RM is just a proposal to rename this one article, which is not a malformed question at all. Personally, I think the current article title should lead to Tiananmen Square protests (disambiguation), but that is not necessarily something we all need to agree about at the time of closure of this RM. — BarrelProof (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Oppose as formedWP:AT is clear that disambiguation is only required when there is actual conflict in article titles. There is no actual conflict and concision is preferred. Guidance is also clear that the apparent conflict in title with one other article should be resolved by a hatnote here (though this needs to be corrected). The proposal as written makes it no easier to find 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre. Therefore, the extra precision serves no useful purpose. However, if the intention is (or perhaps should be) a number of changes not defined in the OP, then this RM is, in my opinion, malformed. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Support some move though I don't have any particular preference for the new name. The title "Tiananmen Incident" is ambiguous and should redirect to a disambiguation page. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
support moving this away and converting this into a dab. lots of incidents happened at this place. not all are protests. for example, a recent and notable one occurred in 2013. RZuo (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Support some move that includes the year. Tiananmen is an important central place associated with many “incidents”, “incident” being a euphemism that can encompass a huge range of events. The primary distant disambiguation for these incidents, collectively, is the year, and so the year belongs in the title, whether at the front, or parenthetically at the end. The disambiguating reference by day-month is a sign of primary sources very close to the event in time, and the best sources to use for titling are more distant, time and space. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:44, 26 April 2022 (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.
