Examples:

Don't exist: [2] https://www.mango-press.com/the-tiananmen-square-massacre-the-wests-most-persuasive-most-pervasive-lie/

Can't be verified: [1] Vancouver Sun, article written in a google doc, authenthiticity can't be proven, source of source in bottom is a link that doest not work.

Contradicts the Prolewiki article: [13] CBS News,

Quote: "But there's no question many people were killed by the army that night around Tiananmen Square, and on the way to it — mostly in the western part of Beijing. Maybe, for some, comfort can be taken in the fact that the government denies that, too."

Hyperlink in quote leads to dead page, so archived link: https://web.archive.org/web/20090606124946/https://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/04/world/worldwatch/entry5061564.shtm l: "We could hear shooting. A large group of students and civilians at this corner of Tiananmen Square were facing lines of soldiers.

We could see burning vehicles on the Square and we tried to approach discreetly, but were told the soldiers would certainly shoot."

Quote from ProleWiki article: "Around 5:00 am on June 4, the 3,000 remaining protestors peacefully left the square. No one died in the square during or after the protests and most deaths were caused by the foreign-backed faction of students."

You see? The sources are very bad, their contents also twisted around, like in [13]; the source was used to "proof" that "[n]o one died in the square [...]" and "[...] deaths were caused by the foreign-backed faction [...]". If you would use this kind of sourcing in any scientific work, everyone would laugh at you.

Don't let yourself be blinded by the 'truth' that sounds the most comforting