18
New docs reveal what really happened in Beijing, 1989
(fridayeveryday.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
18 points (66.1% liked)
World News
36132 readers
211 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The sources they referenced were from 1) mainstream Western journalism, 2) original documents from persons/organizations, and 3) declassified government documents; all of which can be independently verified.
Ah, but you see... no Wikipedia links! And as we all know, in the hallowed halls of Liberal Orthodoxy, only Wikipedia, Star Wars lore, Marvel wikis, and Harry Potter fan theories count as reputable sources.
thats not what I said; I said that I can find no info whatsoever on the website itself. The website has no Wikipedia and isn't mentioned on any major site.
🥱
what are you trying to achieve here? scare me away from adopting your opinion? being critical about new sources / information is just proper validation; your reaction on the other hand leads me to believe that its a non-credible source and I shouldn't believe what it says; job well done.
As others explained to you in this very thread, the video provides credible western sources that you chose to ignore while braying about lack of wikipedia links. If you expect people to take you seriously then put an effort into actually engaging in a meaningful way instead of making inane comments. Also, nobody really cares whether you're personally convinced of anything. What's important is to point out the fallacy of your arguments for others.
you didnt even read my comments; I never claimed that there are wikipedia links lacking; I said (as explained 3 times by now) that there is nothing that I could find that references this website; the website does not have a wikipedia, it also doesnt get cited by anything meaningful. I can't validate the website itself as a credible source.
The article further references many sources, but it rarely provides exact page numbers, document titles, or direct links, which makes it hard to verify the claims quickly or independently. Also sources confirming the validity of some of the declassified documents are missing. Finally it does not properly discuss its supposed sources, but rather cites passages strengthening its own narrative - this just doesn't look like good scientific/journalistic work; which is why I started questioning its validity.
fuck the cia, they have done a lot of provable harm; but I am not willing to jump to conclusions just because it fits my narrative. which is why I will question the validity of articles like this one that raise red flags in terms of proper scientific/journalistic work. Id love to have more reasons to hate the US for taking influence everywhere in the world, but I want it proven not assumed with a hint of sources.
Thats not how source verification works! Credibility=/= verification! Some nobody citing a lot of firsthand accounts of notable state actors admitting that they did a thing that would be bad for them to admit might be less credible than a mainstream news platform only citing secondary sources but is giving you more verifiable information.
I fully agree with you, but thats not what I said. I just reiterated my first comment which apparently was misunderstood to explain my initial doubts.
My critique that their sources don't get proper analysis, but they rather cite segments fitting their narrative stands. That is not good scientific work.
The lacking credibility just gave me the initial doubts I had about the site.
It would be helpful to give specific examples to where you think sources are being misused instead of generally saying that they are being misused.
Could you point out a specific instance where they "they rather cite segments fitting their narrative stands" in a way that misrepresents information?
They claim that Source 25 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep11967.6?seq=21), which is pro massacre narrative btw., explains that the protestors demolishing tanks had been trained by someone, which is the only thing the article cites from the essay. While earlier in the cited source it is claimed that these students were trained by the Chinese army itself << young urban workers, most of whom either had army or militia training, really did conduct a “People’s War.” >> (page 74 in the essay) - the article just uses the later quote as indication that the CIA could've trained these people.
This is my prime example, the other ones are a bit more iffy. This just stood out directly when I checked the quote as the rest of the cited source partially or directly contradicts the essence of the part it is cited in.