482
And the other is an image of some tanks
(thelemmy.club)
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 26 Apr 2026
482 points (82.1% liked)
Memes
55618 readers
855 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
Do you have a source for your estimate of deaths? 100+ is very ambiguous since it includes any number >100, which seems already beyond contention.
Probably the official CPC figure of 241 killed in total. Most of the serious estimates broadly agree - NSA said 180-500, and the Tiananmen Mothers organisation have identified 198 of the dead.
Since we're evidently reading the same Wikipedia article, I'll point out that those are among the lowest estimates on the page and the Beijing hospital record was 478 dead and 920 wounded.
But these are all very different numbers from what was commented.
Well if you're already reading a wiki article I'm not sure how you'd have trouble matching the source. As I said elsewhere they got the distribution wrong, but you're making it sound like you're just here to JAQ off.
IDK why you're trying to source someone else's comment for them, but if you read the comment and the wiki you would see that they are not in agreement.
This is why I asked for their source. Sorry if you find that offensive for some reason lol
Correct, as I said elsewhere they got the distribution wrong because they are working off memory, but it's not difficult to link the numbers - they mistook the police and army as having the same number of deaths as civilian protestors rather than student protestors, but the total roughly matches and there's only one source that makes that specific distinction between groups rather than a general guess at a total. I don't understand why you're so upset about being told the source after asking for the source.
So just to clarify, you think that:
1.) you can provide the correct source for another person's statement
2.) what you posted qualifies as a source even though you did not give one
3.) it's OK if the statement does not agree with the source
4.) you can justify your misattribution by cherry-picking a number that "roughly" agrees if you massage it
Bruh.
Yes? I'm confused, is there no subject you're familiar enough with to recognise sources?
Yes it does, it doesn't qualify as a reference, but luckily you're looking at the Wikipedia page so you can just click it instead.
Yes, people make mistakes, but luckily sometimes other people like me are around to correct them.
No, I can justify my attributionby the fact that there's only one (1) source that lists the dead by faction, the numbers just show how they misremembered the specifics of the source.
This isn't some complex chain of advanced logic, I really don't understand what you're having trouble with.