NEWLY UNEARTHED DOCUMENTS today reveal what really happened in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, in 1989—how the protests were prepared, how teams caused them to escalate, and how they really came to an end.
And they provide the most detailed account yet about one of the biggest hoaxes in modern history—one so successful that the perpetrators, an
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.