I'm no expert, but having read that article, even the sources it links to undermine its point.

For one, the author links to this BBC article to (mis)quote correspondent James Miles, taking his words out of context and using omissions and ellipses to massage evidence out of counter-evidence. Miles states that he and others "got the story generally right," and only admits that, while he saw many civilians murdered that day, they may not have been in Tienanmen Square proper. A few choice quotes, which the Utz article fascinatingly chose not to mention, include:

On the morning of 4 June, reporters in the Beijing Hotel close to the square saw troops open fire indiscriminately at unarmed citizens on Chang'an Boulevard who were too far away from the soldiers to pose any real threat. Thirty or 40 bodies lay, apparently lifeless, on the road afterwards. That scene outside the Beijing Hotel alone justified the use of the word massacre. But the students who had told me and other journalists of a bloodbath on the square proved mistaken.

and

A few of the students were crushed by armoured vehicles some distance from the square after the retreat. There were credible reports of several citizens being shot dead during the night on the outer perimeter of the square, but in places which strictly speaking could be said to be outside the square itself.

and

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, who did some admirable detective work in Beijing hospitals in the weeks after the massacre, said in a report published on 21 June 1989 that "it seems plausible that about a dozen soldiers and policemen were killed, along with 400 to 800 civilians".

So, wherever it happened, the people who were there are agreed that hundreds of civilians were murdered by the Chinese government. Whether the massacre took place on the Square itself or on the streets near it seems immaterial to me, as well as a blatant attempt to whitewash the incident using the old logical fallacy of "Well, you got this one thing wrong, so everything is lies."

Second, the Wikileaks sources and other quotes similarly focus only on the killing in the Square itself, conveniently ignoring violence and murder in the wider area around it. Even the purported release from Ambassador James Lilley (the link to which does not function) claims to have heard gunfire several times, even if it discounts a wholesale massacre at the monument itself.

Third, the statement that Liu Xiaobo disclaimed the massacre seems to be an outright fabrication, as he more than once stated that the massacre provided a major impetus to his lifelong efforts to reform China. This article in the New York Times, published just after his death, demonstrates this amply.

Finally, the article is at great pains to emphasize the CIA's support of the student protest movement in China. Well, while reasonable people may disagree about the appropriate role for the CIA vis-a-vis a protest against a brutally authoritarian foreign government, I don't see how American influence has any relevance to whether the killings occurred or the Deng government's complicity in them. It just seems like an overly long intro designed to muddy the waters and get the viewer's mind in a "skeptical" mood.

The whole thing reads like the worst kind of conspiracy theory, the kind that disguises itself with a veneer of academic respectability. I'll leave it to the experts to say what actually happened, but the article itself doesn't seem worth your time.

Apology for typos ahead of time.

There's a lot of confusion about what the Tiananmen Square Protests were about. However, the argument that the 1989 protests were mischaracterized for propaganda reasons is largely correct. I want to clarify, I am not on some sort of anti-democratic spiel, but the fact is that there have been a large cadre (couldn't help myself) Western political figures that have cultivated the idea that the 1989 protests were solely pro-democratic in nature. It's important to remember that concepts of "democracy" and "human rights" etc. mean very different different things within contexts of traditional Marxist-Leninist ideology, Maoist ideology, and even Chinese traditional culture. I'm not going to go into why these different terms mean because it's not necessary to make my argument here.

The important thing to remember though is that fundamentally these students and workers saw themselves as part of a longer tradition of historical and nationalist protest. Particularly the May 4th Movement in 1919 protesting the allocation of German held concessions in Mainland China to the Empire of Japan. This was not only an important moment for the cultivation of a Chinese national identity, it was and is a key moment in the historical narrative of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The students that gathered in Bejing and other major cities in 1989 saw themselves as bearers of the revolutionary and patriotic torch, much like the students of the 1910s, 1920s, and 1930s had protested. Peking University (BeiDa), and the affiliate colleges and schools that made up the campus of the school (Yanjing/Yenching University), have had long histories of student protests.

But on to the fundamentals of the misrepresentation of 1989. There were essentially three "demographics" involved in the 1989 protests. The first was graduate students. These students were generally more leftist in nature and older. By default, they likely came from more "privileged" families within the Maoist system. The graduate students of the protests were generally supportive of the restoration of a democratic, or rather quasi-democratic system of government within the CPC or within the communist system itself that mirrored that of the early years of the CPC before 1949. They also were increasingly concerned with the rise of corruption and the power of communist officials to obtain wealth and influence, particularly in localities. The late Maurice Meisner termed this system "bureaucratic capitalism," an economic system where relationship with state actors is the most key in determining the success of failure of an enterprise and not it's competitive capabilities in the market. Corruption of this nature unfortunately remains in China. Capitalism and Liberalism were not on the table for the graduate students generally speaking. These students are generally credited with organizing the protests in the first place.

Workers were another big part of the protests, although fewer in number than the university students, they were arguably more important. Having the proletariat class express dissatisfaction with the "communist" system of China in 1980s wasn't exactly a "good look" for obvious reasons. Many of these workers were disatistfied with the reduction of benefits associated with labor that happened under Reform and Opening. In the past, workers were promised a so-called "iron rice bowl." Once they had obtain a position at a state-run factory, they were guaranteed housing, food, healthcare, etc. for life. Reform and Opening necessitated that many of these factories become more competitive in the market, and thus were forced to drop many of these benefits over time and even layoff many workers. Chinese citizens to this day still do not have state provided healthcare and access and quality of healthcare remains a big issue. Much like the graduate students, corruption was also a big issue for the workers that participated.

Finally, you have the undergrads. These guys were the most liberal of the protesters and a good number of them wanted real and total "Chinese Democracy." Many of these students wholeheartedly embraced Liberalism and Democracy as we understand it (to an extent). They were of course also protesting corruption and the larger macro-social issues, like economic downturns, crime, etc.

The issue here is that Westerner commentators have essentially zeroed in on a single demographic within a very large and diverse protest movement and said, "the 1989 protests were all about democracy and the CPC crushed a democratic movement." Well, when really look at what these students were advocating for, that isn't exactly true. They weren't disavowing Mao Zedong, Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai, or any of the old guard of communist leaders (at least publicly). Even the undergrads weren't advocating for the complete overthrow of the communist system. The Western interpretation of the movement, while not wholly wrong, ultimately echos the broader ethos of the period in the United States and Europe. Particularly the idea that democracy is inevitable because all people want it.

Secondarily, this was also a time when the ideas of economists like Milton Friedman were very popular. Particularly, there was a host of thinkers, like Milton Friedman, that saw a strong connection between capitalism and democracy. The events of 1989 seemed to confirm that once people had more economic freedom, some would want democracy as well. Of course, today we know that China, the Gulf States, Singapore etc. are all capitalist to some extent, but are definitely not "democratic." However, that doesn't change the fact that the protesters were fighting for real and substantial change in their society. The tragedy of 1989 should never be forgotten.

edit: wasn't instead of was. Thank you u/Traveledfarwestward edit: changed incorrect reference to Friedman