19
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
19 points (66.7% liked)
World News
36209 readers
443 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
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.