Cant seem to find any public domain photographs/visual aids to include in the article. Anyone with ideas for where to search/personal photographs they are willing to donate? Of interest to this article would be any photographs/visual aids of the conflict in 1988 whether be it in Hargeisa, Burao, Sheikh, Erigavo..etc, refugees at HartaSheikh and other camps in Ethiopia, examples of government atrocities, the aftermath of the genocide, both in terms of civilian loss and fabric of cities/towns/villages.Kzl55 (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kzl55: I've just reverted your addition of an image to the infobox here. While I can empathise with the frustration in being unable to find quality images in the public domain, the image you chose doesn't meet with WP:PERTINENCE for the infobox. Unfortunately, it just looks like a generic photo of an exhumed skeleton on a slab that presents no identifiable features to provide a visual context for the reader, and could have come from an archaeological dig. It's just clinical. If it were, for example, a photo of the actual exhumation with landmarks and other features that would go towards informing the reader, that would be a good use of the image parameter in an infobox. Please compare it with images used in other genocide articles (if the editors have chosen to use an image at all). Images used give a sense of the time and place; methods: circumstances and events that bring home the context. Such distinguishing features are lacking in the photo you've introduced. I can see it as being potentially usable in the body of the article (again, taking PERTINENCE into account as per the caption you provided), but not as an infobox image. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Iryna Harpy. Kzl55: please be careful with images, and image copyvio issues as well. This is a sensitive topic, where extra care is prudent and needed. It is better to have no image, or wait a while for a pertinent image, than add something sensational/generic with little information value. This applies not only to this article, but to other Somalia / Horn of Africa space articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Now that you've explained it I do see your point. I was not aware of WP:PERTINENCE with regards to infobox insertions so thanks for pointing that out. The insertion was partly due to the lack of any PD photographs/visual aids, I have gone through WP:PDIR with no success so when I saw that photograph and confirmed it was PD I jumped at the opportunity. I will try to find a suitable use for it in the body of the article, failing that it might be better to leave it until a suitable section is added.

@Ms Sarah Welch: Noted, and I agree. I have been looking for PD images/visual aids for a while and so far this was the only one I could find. And although the image is of exhumed remains dug up by forensic investigators it does not show much beyond the bones and does look generic. Having read both Iryna Harpy and your posts I see why it is not suitable. Will definitely keep that in mind. Many thanks to both of you --Kzl55 (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

After quite a bit of looking (it's been 3 months already!) and some correspondence, I found a photograph from an actual exhumation that I think could be used for the infobox [1]. The photograph was kindly released by the author (Alison Baskerville) as a contribution to this article so has no copyvio issues. Would like to get some opinions before adding it to the article specifically in terms of WP:PERTINENCE as raised by @Iryna Harpy:. Any thoughts @Ms Sarah Welch:, @Koodbuur:, @Cordless Larry:, @Ciiseciise007:? Regards--Kzl55 (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Kzl55: What are your thoughts about using this image in the main article somewhere instead of infobox? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch: Well, I was thinking of using this one for the infobox and then use the two other photographs donated by the same author in the body of the article [2], [3]. --Kzl55 (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Kzl55: Aren't the other two repetitive? Is there a map of the Horn of Africa that shows affected Isaaq populations/locations where this occurred? Such a map may be informative. Lets wait a week for additional comments. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that using all three images would be excessive, but I think any one of them would be suitable for the infobox. Thanks for your work to secure the release of these, Kzl55. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I believe the first picture would be suitable for the infobox. I don't think there would be any issues with this photo as it is a high quality photo that indicates that these are exhumed remains of victims from the Isaaq genocide as mentioned by the photographer [4]. The other photos are also great, perhaps it would be better to put them together as a collage for the infobox. @Cordless Larry: & @Ms Sarah Welch:, what do you guys think about that? Koodbuur (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

We should avoid repetition, both separately and in the form of a collage. I concur with Cordless Larry. The caption should acknowledge the credits and the photographer. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch: Point taken, I can see how that would be excessive. Perhaps the other photographs could be used on other articles/sections discussing the subject, like Somali Rebellion#Against the Isaaq?

Great point on the map, I have not seen one in any source, but plenty of the sources, including the HRW report, list affected Isaaq populations/locations so perhaps using one of the PD maps of the Horn of Africa we can mark the locations (and provide sources for all inclusions)? How does that sound? Ms Sarah Welch, Cordless_Larry & Koodbuur. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The article is pretty long, so perhaps there is room to use one of the photos in the infobox and one later in the article. I'm on the fence about that though, given the similarity between the three images. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree with the use of the first photo for the infobox as the clothing on the remains of the exhumed people does give context. As for using one of the other photos later in the article, I believe it to be excessive as it is evident (by the clothing) that this is the same exhumation from different angles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, having different photographs/visual aids in the article is definitely preferable, I am hoping we get more releases, I've been in touch with a number of rights holders of photographs, only one to actually get back was Alison Baskerville who kindly released these three photographs.

I've started working on the map as suggested by Ms Sarah Welch and hoping to be done by the weekend. --Kzl55 (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is the map, killing sites information taken from Human Rights Watch's Somalia: A Government at War with its Own People [5], Isaaq territory information taken from CIA map [6]. I did not include all the killing sites as some of the towns and villages I could not find, will try to update it in the future. --Kzl55 (talk) 15:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Just updated the article with the photograph in info box and map. Many thanks for the map idea and please if anyone has any other ideas for appropriate visual aids do share. Regards--Kzl55 (talk) 16:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Since this article is about all of northwestern Somalia, rather than Hargeisa, "hargeisa" within the lede sentence would violate MOS:LEADSENTENCE. Thylacoop5 (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I did a google search for "isaaq genocide" and found zero returns. Therefore, per wp:commonname I have renamed it to "anti-isaaq campaign" which at least is attested by a reliable source. Thylacoop5 (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition to all the reliable sources included in the article, an official UN investigation concluded it was a genocide: "Based on the totality of evidence collected in Somaliland and elsewhere both during and after his mission, the consultant firmly believes that the crime of genocide was conceived, planned and perpetrated by the Somali government against the Isaaq people of northern Somalia between 1987 and 1989" [7]. I have restored the original name. --Kzl55 (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I never claimed this wasn't a genocide. My argument is for implementing wp:commonname. Since "anti-isaaq campaign" is more common than "isaaq genocide", the former should be the article title. Thylacoop5 (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition to all the reputable sources included in the article describing the event as a genocide, the fact that an official UN investigation concluded it was a genocide as per [8] is sufficient to keep the article name intact. Furthermore, reputable international news outlets such as the Washington Post reported it as a genocide against the Isaaq as early as 1990 [9]. Lastly, editors are normally expected to use the talk page and discuss the issue thoroughly before initiating RfCs as per WP:RFCBEFORE--Kzl55 (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Just look at the amount of references on the casualties section. Way to much, surely no one would mind if we got rid of a few? محرر البوق (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2018 (UTC)