Talk:Zhao Lijian

To add to article

To add to this article: Zhao has publicly disavowed his claim that the U.S. introduced the novel coronavirus to China. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a source? The Little Platoon (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Twitter

Why this obsession who he follows on Twitter? It's his private account. That section is solely to smear him. --82.207.237.115 (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

He automatically follows back... 98.37.249.208 (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Brereton Report

I'm not sure why the South China Morning Post article which shows that Zhao's tweet referred to the Brereton Report somehow does not justify including a link to said report as context for this article. The quote from SCMP:

"Zhao’s tweet was referring to a war crimes inquiry finding earlier this month that Australian troops had killed civilians in Afghanistan. China and Russia have condemned Canberra over the Brereton report and called the Australian government hypocritical."

I will be making a revert back on this unless anyone else here has another opinion.

Lostromantic (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Lostromantic: yes, that should certainly be mentioned for context. But then, I'm a huge inclusionist. The Little Platoon (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

The text you’re trying to use is "In late 2020, Zhao used his account to highlight the Brereton Report, a report into war crimes committed by the Australian Defence Force (ADF) during the War in Afghanistan between 2005 and 2016.” but the article characterizes the tweet as "a tweet featuring a meme-like illustration of an Australian soldier appearing to murder a child.” and “referring” in the background section doesnt get you to highlighting or anything like that... Theres no comment on intent at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

It is apparent to me that Brereton Report is the background of his tweet, unless there is a second war crime inquiry. I agree it is necessary background information and have added it in the context.TranscendentMe (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Its ok as context, but we cant say the tweet itself referenced the Brereton Report because it didn’t. The notable issue here based on WP:RS coverage is also the image he attached not the criticism of Australia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Brereton Report is clearly the background of the tweet, there is no second war crime inquiry. Okay to include.Albertaont (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"Satirical image"

Does everyone else here have a different definition of "satirical" compared to me? In what sense does an image of a soldier slitting a child's throat with a bloodied knife qualify as satirical? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright, the term "ironical" (though I think it's meant to be "ironic", grammatically speaking) is more suitable. I'll let this edit slide, though I still need to review the other changes that were made. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

None of the sources say ironic or anything close. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not every words need sources, and the original word "digital-manipulated image" is definitely wrong, the image was created by an artist, its an original artwork, and not a manipulated photo/image trying to make a fake fact.Damian gogo (talk) 06:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not every words [sic] need sources...

Why yes, yes they do: it's a fundamental rule on Wikipedia.

its an original artwork, and not a manipulated photo/image trying to make a fake fact

Your mind-reading is not a substitute for an actual reliable source: again, a a fundamental rule on Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 06:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

fully understand, I retrieved a source and change the definition to support the controversial issue. hopefully it solved the problem Damian gogo (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the descriptor from the Washington Post makes sense. So have put that in. And for the record, not one reliable source regards it as satire.The Little Platoon (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

it's better to used a neutral word "digital illustration", because it's not "doctored" nor "manipulated" Damian gogo (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

But our sources specifically say altered and manipulated (the only other options appear to be “fake" “doctored” and “falsified"), are you saying they’re inaccurate? I dont see any source call it it art or a digital illustration, have you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that Damian gogo has been indeffed as a sock. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Why you find only English sources for this Chinese artwork by a Chinese Computer Graphic artist? To follow WP:GLOBAL of WP:NPOV, You can easily find terms like "漫画"(Caricature)[1]/"电脑绘制的插画"(A Computer Graphic illustration) [2] from Singapore Nanyang Sin-Chew Lianhe Zaobao，"讽刺漫画"(Caricature)/"作品"(artwork) [3] from Sina in China. Lewix (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As above, "computer graphic" should be a best term to balance all points of view and without any impression. Lewix (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lewix: the main discussion on this topic is below, in the section titled ""Digitally manipulated image". If you have reliable sources to add to the list showing the term used, please do so.The Little Platoon (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Squirist’s edits

@Squirist: are you sure you understand WP:NPOV, WP:NOTSCANDAL, and WP:SENSATIONAL? From your edits you may have misunderstood something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"Digitally manipulated image"

Describing the artwork shared by Lijian as "digitally-manipulated" is problematic as it implies or can give the false impression that Lijian's post included a doctored image or a sinisterly edited image in order to give a false impression as opposed to being an artistic illustration of the perceived Australian Defense Force's attitude to Afghan civilians.PailSimon (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the phrase used by reliable sources including SBS and Reuters. The South China Morning Post and others use variants of the same. Incidentally @PailSimon: it's the Australian Defence Force, as Australians use English English.The Little Platoon (talk)

You have a very Euro-centric notion of "reliable sources".PailSimon (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Only one of those three sources is European. Given its non-factual nature it would appear to some that you meant it as an invective or slur which would be an issue vis-a-vis WP:NPA. I assume that was not the case and you were simply mistaken as to the domicile of those sources? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"can give the false impression that Lijian's post included a doctored image or a sinisterly edited image” riiiiiiiight... See Reuter’s “China's WeChat blocks Australian PM in doctored image dispute”[4], NPR's "China Refuses To Apologize To Australia Over Official's Tweet Of Doctored Image”[5], Vice’s "China Tweets Fake Photo of Australian Soldier Murdering Afghan Child”[6]... What false impression? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Then you know how ridiculous those "reliable sources" are. Thank the author for releasing the image in PD, so anyone can judge it by themselves Lewix (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The specific choice of words ("doctored" or "digitally manipulated") implies a misrepresentation of reality. But it's a figurative artistic work with a political purpose, substantially in the same vein as a political cartoon, though obviously more lifelike than is traditional. I realize that not everyone would realize that if the artist could manipulate the ground to look like flags or puzzle pieces, they could also manipulate the composition, features and proportions of the subjects, so we should absolutely call it something other than a photograph to make absolutely clear that it is not a real event. But we should say something neutral like "artistic representation" or "political cartoon" to avoid implying that the mere use of artistic tools was intended by the artist to deceive. (How other people use the image as propaganda is a different matter, but their motives shouldn't be ascribed to the artist without evidence from reliable sources.) TheFeds 12:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Do we have sources which say artistic representation or political cartoon? We would need there to be a comparable number to those saying doctored and manipulated in order for us to change it, WP:RS use appears appears to be overwhelming. Its also important to note that the notable thing here is the tweet not the image itself and there was no indication in the tweet that the image wasn’t real... It was presented as factual which is why theres such a big uproar. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

As above, the secondary sources are largely calling this a doctored or digitally manipulated, sometimes altered, sometimes photoshopped image. Until someone can lead a new consensus for an alternative descriptor, doctored or digitally manipulated is the term.The Little Platoon (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the reliable source, why you find only English sources for this Chinese artwork by a Chinese Computer Graphic artist? To follow WP:GLOBAL, You can easily find terms like "漫画"(Caricature) [7] from Singapore Nanyang Sin-Chew Lianhe Zaobao，"讽刺漫画"(Caricature)/"作品"(artwork) [8] from Sina in China. Lewix (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As above, "computer graphic" should be a best term to balance all points of view and without any impression. Lewix (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Because this is the english language Wikipedia and we dont use editor translations like that. None of our reliable sources say computer graphic, that would be WP:OR but it seems you are not only a proponent but a practitioner of original research on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You are only choosing the "reliable sources" that support you. Why don't you do a little more search works? You want English, yes, There are a ton: "propaganda artwork" in title[9], "art" in title [10], "computer graphic" in the content Mr Fu created the controversial computer graphic on the evening of November 22, "political cartoons" in the title:[11], "a graphic, computer-generated illustration" in the content [12]. If you insist on using this word, absolutely it's violate WP:NPOV Lewix (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:HEADLINE, we focus on content not titles. The Reuters headline is "'Wolf warrior' artist turns new chapter in Chinese propaganda artwork” which isnt calling this piece propaganda artwork, in the text they say "digitally manipulated image.” The ABC piece says “computer graphic” but also says “manipulated image,” and it says "doctored image” in the title. China Plus is not a WP:RS. The Washington Post piece uses “graphic” in the sentence " a graphic, computer-generated illustration” but thats not the same definition of graphic you’re using, now they do call it an artwork, illustration, etc but this sentence makes it clear "The artwork appeared to be a heavily manipulated composite of a photograph and stylized digital illustration.“ that they’re supporting the “manipulated” language. The only one which actually supports your argument is the Quartz piece, I guess 1/5 isn't bad. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

"you are not only a proponent but a practitioner of original research on wikipedia." Lewix (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, Please show the link of the policy that a straightforward dictionary translations is wp:OR. otherwise, you are doing something wp:OR Lewix (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree that "computer graphic" is a neutral and most suitable word here. "Doctored image" is both POV and factually incorrect. More sources that describe the image other than "doctored image" can be added. NoNews! 08:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that back up your statement ""Doctored image" is both POV and factually incorrect.” because if thats true we need to take a full dozen sauces to RSN, all our current WP:RS back up the doctored/manipulated language. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

ABC news quotes the PM as saying "falsified image" in a press brief [13] and later on in WeChat he calls it a "false image" according to news [14] so False and Falsied are clearly in the PMs point of view. I'd say doctored is definitely POV and factually incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehighwayman5 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

If I may chime in here, I think Scotty boy has handled this dispute terribly, and I think the impact of the tweet by Zhao Lijian has been absurdly overblown. In fact, the tweet wouldn't have been that significant previously. However, because Scotty boy drew attention to it, the artwork and the artist have surged in renown and fame. Congratulations, Scotty boy... you just played yourself. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The source in question, referenced on the article, literally refers to the image as "Mr Fu's artwork" and features the artist describing it as "artwork." It is so absurd to call it a "digitally manipulated" or a "doctored" image when one could say EVERY piece of digital art is "digitally manipulated." Unless somebody finds a source image that Mr Fu has "doctored" or "digitally manipulated", the phrase should obviously be "artwork". I'm in favour of "computer graphic" or political cartoon. Acalycine (talk) 04:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll add this: @The Little Platoon: are you sure the phrase "doctored image" has consensus? In this discussion, it looks like we have 5 editors in favour of the phrase "artwork" or "computer graphic" or something of the sort, as opposed to 2 in favour of doctored/manipulated. Check my count again, but that certainly does not look like a consensus for the latter. Acalycine (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You are mistaken, the source in question says "Mr Fu's artwork has echoed China's aggressive diplomacy style in recent years.” it does not refer to the piece in question as Mr Fu's artwork. Misrepresenting sources is a serious matter, don’t let it become a habit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It uses the term "computer graphic", so I'm not sure what the problem is - the Global Times reference seems to be just an attribution for the date on which it was created, not the language "controversial computer graphic", unless you can find the article they reference using that term. Don't be so condescending. Acalycine (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the conversation @Acalycine:. Right now I'm in favour of calling this material communist propaganda, however, if you look at the spread of sources mentioned above, and there are about half a dozen, they all refer to it as "digitally manipulated" or a "doctored image". Given that we need to go by secondary sources and, may I stress, not the description of the creator of the piece, that's what we need to use. I think the fact you have disclosed that you are a person who would like to be compared to Xi Jinping makes me inclined to encourage you to step back, and stick to the process of using reliable, balanced sources and they descriptions they use. But then, that's probably good advice for all of us, including me. Best regards The Little Platoon (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think calling political artwork "communist propaganda" is NPOV at all, and the fact you are suggesting that does not bode well for fending off accusations of your proposal being partisan. I'm not sure what my views on Xi have to do with this discussion involving Wikipedia policy, but alright. Some of the sources mentioned above, including (as I have said) the ABC article, refer to it as BOTH a "doctored image" and an "artwork" or "cartoon" or "computer-generated image" or "digital illustration", so I'm suggesting (as a "tiebreaker") we go with the NPOV option, the one that is actually true and the one that conforms with the intentions of the artist (and consequently, the truth). I don't see how the SCMP source is relevant here since it is syndicated content from Reuters, so we can cross that one off the list. Those sources I just mentioned (and the ones I'm proposing follow this same pattern) are SBS, WaPo, MamaMia, ABC, Reuters again, QZ. These should be checked for being reliable sources, of course. Awaiting your response re the consensus. Acalycine (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

You're quite right @Acalycine: I don't think that 'communist propaganda' is the term that should be used in the article. That's my concession. I can see that you, as a out and out supporter of President Xi and his regime would like to call the item a piece of digital art as that suits your outlook. The point is, we have to abandon our agendas, both you and me. While I'm quite sure that the material was produced to propagate the views of the CCP, it's just not how it's been mostly talked about in our reliable sources. So, we have to settle for the commonly used descriptors. While we're looking at those we can knock out a few sources on your list. For example, I don't think Mamamia is regarded as a particularly reliable source for matters of state. Now to the numbers. You'll find there is a lot more than one source that refers to the material as being a doctored image or doctored photograph. I don't intend to do an exhaustive search, as I'm sure you're quite capable of doing that. But here's what I found after a couple of minutes:

ABC (in a few articles) called it a "doctored image"

Washington Post called it a "doctored image"

The AFR called it a "doctored image"

CNBC called it a "doctored image"

and yes, Reuters called it a doctored image

Canberra Times called it fake, which is the alternative

Canada' National post called it a 'fake'

and SBS called it a fake.

In short, I don't get edit this article to use the phrase "communist propaganda" (although, I can see a handful of sources that have used that term) and I dare say you don't get to call this thing digital art. We both have to submit to the predominant descriptor used by reliable sources which is "doctored image". But, as I say, if you can gather up the editors above and persuade them to declare that it should be another term ("fake" would be the other option, I think) then feel free to proceed.The Little Platoon (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Not really sure what point you're trying to make re "agendas", it's not really applicable to the discussion - I wouldn't call myself a "supporter" of Xi either, I merely think that one would be honoured to be compared to him. Thanks for the new sources, albeit the repetition of syndicated content (the same Reuters article) which obviously don't count as new sources. What are the other sources that can be knocked off, seeing as you said we can "knock out" a few sources? Mamamia on the reliable sources noticeboard seems to be considered generally reliable, and I don't see why it would be considered unreliable. Since the tally is now in favour of "doctored" and such, the evidence now weighs in your favour. I'll keep updating the count if I spot any new sources.

On an unrelated point, how was "the material produced to propagate the views of the CCP"? I didn't know being against war crimes was an exclusively CCP view. This piece of digital art should really "suit your outlook" as well, if you're against war crimes, just as Picasso's Guernica (Picasso) should "suit your outlook" if you're against war crimes. Acalycine (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

As interesting as these side paths are, I might stick to the topic, which is about reliable sources. Important as this is serious material. As such, I don't think we look to platforms that don't really have teams of serious journalists looking at foreign affairs. So yes, I would remove mamamia and yahoo. If you're wanting to do a detailed survey, and you're adding up news platforms that use the descriptor "fake image" or something close to that, I would also add The Daily Telegraph, The Australian, Sky, Nine, Straits Times, and Japan Times.The Little Platoon (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the sources, but your justification for excluding those previous sources is just not in line with Wikipedia policy surrounding reliable sources, so...no, they still count. Acalycine (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe the issue is with the automatic presumption that some sources are "reliable" and hence can be automatically used in-line without attribution, not being aware that these sources can still clearly portray their biases, especially on political issues. For example, even if one such "reliable" source listed is strongly pro-Democrat, it must still be attributed when balancing US political standpoints. In this case the bias is easily recognizable from the use of strongly POV words ("fake" -- if there is fake, what would be "real"? If a source calls it "fake" or "doctored" should we just blindly follow suit?), as well as comparison with other contentious media used in similar contexts (such as Guernica and Charlie Hebdo as some editors mentioned above; they are called "oil painting" and "satirical cartoon" rather than "fake/doctored images").

Therefore a middle ground is to recognize the bias and use attribution to give WP:DUE. I would suggest using:

1. "Zhao circulated a computer graphic (ref sources) ...... Many sources criticized the graphic as a fake or doctored image (ref sources).
2. "Zhao circulated an image of ...... The image is a computer graphic (ref sources) created by Wuheqilin ...... but has been widely criticized as a fake or doctored image by news media outlets such as (cite sources).

NoNews! 02:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

What are the sources for the suggested text (I just see “cite sources")? I don’t think any of the ones we currently have would satisfy the text you are proposing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm talking about the paraphrasing of the in-line text. "ref source" would be something like "^[10]" linking to a reference. "cite source" would be something like "... such as The Washington Post^[10]". There are already sources that both you and Lewix have listed that describe the image as both "computer graphics" and "doctored image". As long as there are any reliable sources that call the image by its neutral term "computer graphics", it can be used here. The others that use the obviously biased term "doctored image" go to the separate attribution. NoNews! 03:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

We don’t currently have any sources that talk about media criticism, let alone widespread criticism. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Then I don't see how your objection is related here. It's obviously up to us Wikipedia users to detect bias in articles, otherwise we would just be citing any random article in the Internet and not needing to painstakingly conjure up a WP:RSP in the first place. Even so, WP:RSP is just a guideline, and has its limitations as I mentioned earlier. Here me and many other editors have already pointed out that "computer graphics" is the less biased term and hence has preferential usage, but considering that so many sources are still calling it "doctored image", we attribute so. NoNews! 03:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

We don’t appear to be using "random articles in the internet" or sources with a noted bias. We do actually need a WP:RS to put something in a wikipedia article, especially a BLP. My objection is very clear, we don’t have a source which supports your suggested text. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Per we don’t have a source which supports your suggested text: look through the list of sources below, which I believe you added yourself.

The line of thought is simple:

1. Is "fake/doctored image", the currently most cited term, NPOV? My view is that it is not, both grammatically (subjective words "fake" "doctored") and compared to other similar contentious sources (such as Guernica and Charlie Hebdo). Therefore it should not be used as a direct description.
2. What other terms can be used to describe the image? As you have sourced yourself, the terms Artwork/computer graphic/computer-generated image/digital illustration/cartoon/digitally created. If you have looked carefully, many of the sources in the second section also credits the author as a "computer graphic artist" (considering all the other images that he has created), thereby suggesting that they do recognize the image as CGI but have to put on a front to show their political positions. If you believe that "computer graphics" is not apt enough, feel free to endorse "digitally created image" as SCMP has done, or any of the other combinations that you have listed.
3. I have listed two templates for in-article use that I think can be used to most aptly describe the situation. I do not know if you (a) support my first point here; (b) are objecting to simply the term, or objecting to the structure of my template overall. If the latter, please suggest an alternative. NoNews! 03:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

1. @Newfraferz87: just going off the 18 items from reliable sources below, the descriptor "doctored" or "fake" or "photoshopped" is the most commonly used description. You accept that, yes?The Little Platoon (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I have already acknowledged that "fake/doctored" has been the most commonly cited descriptor out of the sources listed so far. At the same time I have made my line of thought and standpoint clear that the term is POV, and in the presence of alternative, more neutral terms being used, that they be used here instead. NoNews! 04:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Newfraferz87: I think I follow your argument. It does leave us in the unusual situation where you're saying the great majority of news sources (so far) on this topic are not to be used as they don't satisfy NPOV. That is, to put it politely, a big call.The Little Platoon (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Newfraferz87: just one other thing, if we go with your logic, we'd change the descriptor to "computer graphic." The source of that phrase is a double conundrum. First, because it's the phrase used by and, I believe, originated with Global Times. That is awkward because the platform is controlled by the Communist Party of China, the very same people who Mr Zhao works for, so, not really a balanced or reliable source. In fact, I think it's regarded as a deprecated source on these pages. But perhaps you can find a source that isn't deprecated. Second it's the descriptor used by the person who created the image, so that, or rather, he, would not be a good secondary source either. Do you see the problem?The Little Platoon (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I've already made my reply to you at Talk:Scott Morrison; in case that wasn't clear enough, I'll reiterate it here: I don't care if the term is used by a deprecated source such as the Global Times, I'm fine with any neutral descriptor that objectively tells the image as it is. Many sources that already use the biased terms "fake/doctored image" credit the author as a "computer graphics artist", showing that calling the image "computer graphics" is reasonable. If you are politically allergic to use the same term as Global Times, there are still many other neutral terms such as SCMP 's "digitally created image", or others as noted below by Horse Eye's Back in the first section, that I'm amicable to. As long as it is not "fake/doctored/false image" which are clearly POV. NoNews! 14:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is Wikipedia policy and guidelines, this isnt a political discussion and I won’t be engaging in one. Please do not engage in further personal attacks. Back on topic: you still need to establish that fake/doctored is biased, I don’t think we have any WP:RS which say that... We need to have that in order to entertain your argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Glad that you have made your doubts on my position clear. NoNews! 04:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Q: Regarding Zhao Lijian's posted image, do the use of "fake"/"doctored"/"manipulated" descriptors violate WP:NPOV, and therefore should be discouraged from direct, non-attributed usage?

Pointers:

1. Grammatical: fake (as adjective: "[something] that has been made to look valuable or genuine, usually in order to deceive people." ); doctor (as trasitive verb: "If someone doctors something, they change it in order to deceive people.") manipulate (as verb: "control [something] to your advantage, often unfairly or dishonestly). Overall suggests that the item described is a replaced or manipulated version, with the intent of deception, i.e. making others think that the changed image represents the original.
2. The nature of the image. It is, objectively, a graphic art created on the computer; this is the same for all the other similar images created by the same artist, who has been credited as a computer graphic artist.
3. The usage of "fake" or "doctored". In an evaluation of what constitute fake news: "it is not clear that academics using ‘fake news’ in academic discussions run a greater risk either of being perceived as using a slur term or of using a term lacking in descriptive content ..." [15] [16]; a discussion on Slate showing the difficulty in defining fake news: "...carelessly blur the lines between fabricated news, conspiracy theories, and right-wing opinion by lumping them all under the fake news banner" [17]. Essentially the latter acknowledges that the use of "fake news" has become more ubiquitous and undefined, while the former implies that usage of "fake" without describing why something is "fake" leads to ambiguity.
4. One source that has tried to explain why it has called the image "doctored image/heavily manipulated composite" is Washington Post: "it was not immediately clear whether it was based on a real photo of a killing" (the closest I could find was this much earlier image here) -- and that it is their interpretation (=POV) of what the image possibly suggests. At the same time WaPo also objectively calls it "artwork", "graphic, computer-generated illustration". SCMP's article calls the image in question "digital illustration" while putting quotation marks around the terms "the fake photo", suggesting that they recognize a POV representation of the Australian government that used the quoted terms. Most other news sources did not explain why they describe the image as "fake/doctored/manipulated". In addition, The New Daily very clearly called it "computer-generated illustration", disputing other media claims of it being "disinformation" or "doctored photo".
5. The artist himself claims that he meant to create "nationalistic art" and his image is a "fact-based artwork".
6. The Brereton Report does mention the unlawful killing of 39 Afghan civilians by Australian military personnel.

My opinion overall is that whether or not the Chinese artist created the work as a derivative of an earlier photo, it has changed considerably to the point where it is clearly distinguishable from any photos. It appears to have been created as satire or mockery towards the Australian forces in Afghanistan, by dramatizing the unlawful killing of civilians. I find it in the same league with other contentious media as Guernica and Charlie Hebdo 's cartoons. From the first pointer, "fake/doctored" implies the presence of an original/real, and intention to deceive the copy as the original, which doesn't befit the image. From the third pointer, adjectives such as "fake" should not be taken when used in ambiguous situations without explanation -- this is in line with WP:NPOV#Impartial tone (and the same holds for "doctored" as well); here the only explanation was given by WaPo The New Daily, which has made it clear that calling the image "fake" is a POV.

Therefore my view is certainly Yes. Therefore, regardless of how many sources still use the subjective descriptors "fake/doctored", it should not cloud our judgement that there is bias, and use neutral descriptors while attributing the use of the subjective descriptors. NoNews! 04:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The WP does not make clear that doctored/fake/manipated is POV, where are you seeing that? The full quote is "After Zhao posted it, it immediately sparked an uproar, not only because of its grisly nature but also because it was not immediately clear whether it was based on a real photo of a killing.” which is clearly talking about the popular reaction to the tweet not why WP chose to use the terms they used. Misrepresenting reliable sources is a serious concern, you’re going to need to explain yourself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I checked again, and you're right on this account -- my apologies. I have updated the points accordingly, and I believe that my argument still stands. NoNews! 17:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Let me just summarise where this discussion is up to. It's accepted that the vast majority of reliable sources (listed below) describe the image as being "doctored" or "fake" or "digitally manipulated." However, it is the view of @Newfraferz87: that "regardless of how many sources" there may be, the image appears to have been created as satire." Which is to claim that these reliable sources are wrong or that they don't have a neutral point of view. @Horse Eye's Back: and others presumably, believe that Wikipedia only ever goes off reliable sources, one of which is the The Washington Post which said "it was not immediately clear whether it was based on a real photo of a killing." Part of me is inclined to say that suggests the image is not clearly satire at all. But the question before other editors really is this: do we dismiss reliable sources in the case of this matter? I believe the answer is no. Your thoughts?The Little Platoon (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Your standpoint do we dismiss reliable sources ... answer is no is a little ambiguous, so perhaps you could make this clearer: do you meant to say that [a] to not dismiss means you're claiming that when many reliable sources say so, they cannot be wrong / their views must be authoritative, so there must be no bias/POV (and thereby giving a direct "No" response to the header question), or [b] that whatever the reliable sources mention should still be noted (rather than omitted) in the in-line text on Wikipedia, or both -- or something else (if I had misunderstood)?

If option [b], then I already have suggested a template earlier that attempts to present it objectively: "The image is a computer illustration/digitally generated image/...^[ref] created by Chinese artist Wuheqilin ... (but) has been criticized as a "fake" or "doctored" image by many news outlets ^[ref]", so perhaps you can respond to this. The first descriptor can be any neutral terms from a reliable source, as Horse Eye's Back listed in the first section below. In addition, note that based on WP:BIASED, reliable sources need not be neutral or objective, but Wikipedia in-line texts need to. NoNews! 01:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, @Newfraferz87: my view is that we DO NOT dismiss reliable sources. My view is that every sentence should be based on a reliable source. The sentence we have at the moment reads "Zhao used his account to circulate a doctored image" and that statement is based on the 22 reliable sources that we have listed below. So my view is that should stand.The Little Platoon (talk) 05:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Little Platoon: Understood (and corrected your quote), thank you -- and I believe that we cannot at the moment reach a common consensus. Will wait a few days for input from other editors. NoNews! 07:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

————————————————————————————————————————————

Sources describing the image

* indicates a source uses both

Artwork/computer graphic/computer-generated image/digital illustration/cartoon/digitally created

• WaPo "doctored image,” "graphic, computer-generated illustration,” “image,” "an illustration,” “artwork’s,” " artwork appeared to be a heavily manipulated composite of a photograph and stylized digital illustration,” “picture,” *
• Reuters 2 "computer-generated image,” "digitally manipulated image,” *
• QZ "digital illustration,” “cartoon’s,” "disturbing cartoon,” “cartoon,” “drawing,”
• Yahoo "confronting new image,” "provocative fake Australian soldier image,” “image,” "Australian-related artwork,” “image,” “image,” “image,” *
• SCMP “image,” "digitally created image,”
• ABC "doctored image,” "doctored image,” “image,” (we also have "controversial computer graphic” but its credited to the Global Times) *

Doctored/manipulated/fake/etc.

• SBS “fake image,” "manipulated image,” "digitally manipulated image,” “picture,” “image,” "manipulated image,” "fabricated image,” "graphic fake photo,” “image,”
• Reuters "doctored image,” "doctored tweeted image,” “picture,” "digitally manipulated image,” “image,” "manipulated image,” “image,” “image,” “image,”
• Reuters 2 "computer-generated image,” "digitally manipulated image,” *
• MamaMia "doctored photo,” "doctored photo,” "fake image," (note that this piece discusses both the image and the cartoon of the Kangaroo which appears to have caused some confusion)
• WaPo "doctored image,” "graphic, computer-generated illustration,” “image,” "an illustration,” “artwork’s,” " artwork appeared to be a heavily manipulated composite of a photograph and stylized digital illustration,” “picture,” *
• ABC "doctored image,” "doctored image,” “image,” (we also have "controversial computer graphic” but its credited to the Global Times) *
• Yahoo "confronting new image,” "provocative fake Australian soldier image,” “image,” "Australian-related artwork,” “image,” “image,” “image,” *
• Slate "graphic, photoshopped image,” “image,”
• ABC 2 "Doctored image,” "doctored image,” “image,”
• AFR "doctored image,” "doctored image,” “picture,” (paywall prevents access any further)
• Canberra Times "fake image,” "digitally manipulated image,” "picture,” "manipulated image,” “image,”
• National Post (Reuters syndicated) "doctored photo,” "fake image,” “image,” "fake image,”
• Japan Times “image,” “digitally altered image,”
• The Straits Times "fake image,” "false image,” “image,” “photo,”
• Nine "doctored photo,” “photo," "faked image,” “image,” “image,”
• The Daily Telegraph "photoshopped image"
• The Australian "fake photo"
• Sky "fake image"
• The Guardian "manufactured image."
• Associated Press "fake image,” "graphic image,”
• AFP "fake post,” "staged image,” "digitally altered image,”
• NPR "doctored image" / "altered image" / "heavily manipulated image"

Artwork (or variant) only: 2

Doctored (or variant) only: 22

Both: 3

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 和平之师.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

A point of resolution regarding Zhao Lijian, Australia and the manipulated image

There’s been extensive discussion about the digitally manipulated image depicting an Australian soldier cutting the throat of a child above. I thank @Calton:@Amigao:@Andykatib:@Acalycine:@Tobby72:@Lewix:@Newfraferz87:@PailSimon:@Horse Eye's Back: for their respective contributions across a number of articles which relate to this material. I also thank @Rosguill: as an editor and an admin for providing guidance on where this material should live and the kind of language we might adopt, that guidance may be found here. From that it’s recommended that the main content regarding this incident lives as a subsection of the Zhao_Lijian, so there doesn’t need to much more than a sentence or two on the topic at Scott Morrison, Wolf warrior diplomacy Brereton Report or other related articles.

It may be, some time in the future, that the incident comes to be regarded as a turning point. And, should that happen, and there are enough good sources to establish that, the matter may deserve its own article. But that’s a few years away.

As to language, there has been a lot of too and fro. As at 11 December 2020 we have around 30 reliable sources and the majority of them describe the image as doctored or manipulated or fake. (I acknowledge there has been dissent, suggesting that we use a phrase such as computer graphic, which has been used by Times and other journals.) However, following all the debate, I think it’s good to settle around the direction provided by Rosguill, who suggested something like the following be used: In late 2020, Australia demanded that China apologize for Zhao Lijian's promotion of a digitally-manipulated image of an Australian soldier cutting the throat of a child. China rejected the demands for an apology the next day. The incident had the effect of unifying Australian politicians in condemning China across party lines while also drawing attention to an Australian investigation of war crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. The incident was further seen as a sign of deteriorating relations between Australia and China

So, that’s where I propose where the material mostly lives, and the kind of language we use.The Little Platoon (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Little Platoon: Do you want to add a notice to redirect all subsequent discussions on this issue to one talk page (such as this one) so it wouldn't be scattered across all the different talk pages?

While I'm okay with the status quo of having descriptions in various articles, this incident is discussed and impacted in quite many pages (Zhao Lijian, Scott Morrison, Wolf warrior diplomacy, Brereton Report, Australia–China relations), so there's a potential issue of unwitting editors changing the description at each individual article over time until they all look different. We can leave the discussion open on whether to create a new article for it, in case some editors have strong opinions.

For the new wording, if we interpret that it is now referencing Australia's POV calling the image "digitally-manipulated" (and provided that nowhere else in the paragraph is the image directly referred to as "fake"/"doctored"/"manipulated"), then I am agreeable to it. But (given your point the main content regarding this incident lives as a subsection of the Zhao_Lijian) this appears to be only for the other related articles, and I don't know if you plan to implement the same to the main description at Zhao Lijian though -- if otherwise, then naturally it still leaves our dispute for the paragraph wording there unresolved, and would require further discussion.

Still, much thanks to your efforts for all the coordination so far. NoNews! 00:55, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

@Newfraferz87: I would be grateful if you might do the notice to redirect. That would be helpful.The Little Platoon (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @The Little Platoon:, thank you so much for your extensive in-depth research and consultation of the various sources on the Afghan tweet dispute. I like the neutral phrasing used in the paragraph highlighted in green. "Digitally-manipulated" in my opinion sounds better than "fake" or "doctored." Agree that it will be good to keep the main topic on Zhao Lijian's page. Besides the aforementioned articles, the China–New Zealand relations#Brereton Report and Jacinda Ardern articles also mention it briefly. Could limit the discussion there to just a couple of sentences. The New Zealand Government has taken an interest given NZ's "kith and kin" relations with Australia, whom we regard as cousins (think Turkey and Azerbaijan's fraternal relationship). Andykatib 01:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Why not use a neutral only term: image/picture/graphic if you don't want "artwork"/"illustration"/"cartoon"/"drawing" that also are used by some reliable sources? Everyone agree it's an image in any POV. The "digitally-manipulated" is not NPOV, what the original image it manipulated? Why you insist on adding an attributives "digitally-manipulated", referencing Australia's POV? My proposal is ...for Zhao Lijian's promotion of an image of...Lewix (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

On what grounds are you arguing that the other terms aren’t neutral? You appear to misunderstand WP:NPOV which is about reflecting what the sources say and not some abstract objective truth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing the term "image" is neutral. It's a topic talking about China-Australia reletionship, It's absolutely not neutral if any terms refering only one's POV. Why you insist on adding a non-neutral attributives? Lewix (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Would you @Horse Eye's Back: please explain your revert of my edits? I have already made my stand in the section above -- particularly with the fourth point that there are at least two sources showing that "fake" "doctored" etc is Australian POV. Wikipedia doesn't only represent Australian/NZ/American/French users, and WP:BIASED mandates that Wikipedia should stick to NPOV even if reliable sources continue to use POV, and attribute the sources. I can understand if the descriptor is used under a sentence beginning with the likes of "Australia criticized ...", but not where at places not referencing POVs in the encyclopedia, you are insisting in using POV terms, when so many alternative objective descriptors are available and already extensively used by RS. NoNews! 00:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lewix: Just to recap, the discussion has coalesced around the language provided by @Rosguill: who suggested the following:

In late 2020, Australia demanded that China apologize for Zhao Lijian's promotion of a digitally-manipulated image of an Australian soldier cutting the throat of a child. China rejected the demands for an apology the next day. The incident had the effect of unifying Australian politicians in condemning China across party lines while also drawing attention to an Australian investigation of war crimes committed by Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. The incident was further seen as a sign of deteriorating relations between Australia and China. You might notice that phrase "manipulated image" is the key term, one that is supported by the majority of reliable sources.The Little Platoon (talk) 00:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

So do you mean I can only say "YES" to the term/suggestion? you called it a disscussion? Yes, I noticed the "digitally-manipulated" is the key term, what we think it's only referening Australia's POV. It's a topic talking about China-Australia reletionship, It's absolutely not neutral if any terms refering only one's POV. Lewix (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Newfraferz87: I encourage you to take a breath, and take in the advice from the admin. We have a term that is supported by the vast majority of reliable sources.Thank you.The Little Platoon (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, I think I explained it clear both here today and in my earlier reply to you two days ago, that (my standpoint is) it's acceptable if calling the image "fake" "doctored" "manipulated" is referenced as Australia's POV, as in the current Australia demanded ... promotion of a digitally-manipulated image, but not where it is described so as a stand-alone descriptor because it would mean violating WP:BIASED, no matter how many reliable sources take that view. That was what my objection to HEB's revert was about. Best. NoNews! 00:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

We can open that discussion up if you like, but there's a strong chance the descriptor will then become "fake image" or even "communist propaganda" because there are a lot of sources that use one of those terms. Might be best to keep Pandora's box closed, but it's up to you. I notice that the admin who provided guidance said nothing about referencing "digitally manipulated" as a term that belongs to particular journalists from particular nations, so your argument hasn't won support at that level I'm afraid.The Little Platoon (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

If you're worried about that, then my solution to that is simply to source some of the terms called by Chinese state media Chinese state media refuted the descriptors ... calling the image "..." instead^[ref] , and then not use any of the terms described by both Australian or Chinese authorities outside of the reference areas, such as image descriptors or section subheaders. This would both meet WP:DUE and ensure all POVs stay in their respective referencing areas. NoNews! 01:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly worried. I'm mildly concerned about your hitting your head against a wall. The principles of wikipedia aren't changing. We use reliable sources, of which, in this case we have a plethora. So we defer to them. Likewise, once an admin has given a view and that has been supported, then going against it is a lot like skull meeting masonry too. I enjoin you to walk away from all such frustrations and acquiesce. To keep coming at the very same topic, with exactly the same arguments isn't a long way from hounding and is certainly moving towards being tendentious. It's been fairly civil so far, let's not get to that point eh?The Little Platoon (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

From the reliable sources, the only common consensus is the term "image" to refering both POVs of China and Australia. My suggestion is using the neutral term "image" without adding any non-neutral attributives. Lewix (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

China's POV: "a "digital illustration" and not a "fabricated photo"" [18] [19] [20] Lewix (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

in the debate between "digital illustration" which has connotations of an artist drawing something digitally and "fabricated photo" which has connotations of a person trying to make a fake photo and pretend it is real I think "Image" still continues to be the best term that respects both viewpoints. I don't see how "digitally-manipulated" is in any way different to Falsified, Faked, Photoshopped, etc which are all shown to be australian POVs. Thehighwayman5 (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

So your suggestion is: "Zhao, Australia and the image."

I think we will go with the term used in the vast majority of the reliable sources, and supported by the admin. The Little Platoon (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

• I have the suggestion: ...for Zhao Lijian's promotion of an image of.... Please don't misinterpret. I suggest "image" without adding any non-neutral attributives unless both POVs are represented.
• Why you always emphasize "admin"? Do you mean we can only say YES to an article edit suggestion from admin and cannot have any other proposal? @Rosguill: your opinion?
• It's majority not all, especially, voices from China are considered as non-reliable sources, and reliable sources written in Chinese are excluded. As I always said, it's a topic talking about China-Australia reletionship, it's not neutral if represent only one's voice -- in the situation that there are reliable sources to show the other's POV. Lewix (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  Honestly, the phrasing that's being presented here that I wrote was intended for Wolf warrior diplomacy and I wasn't even aware that this dispute was ongoing when I proposed it. You're also right that admin's opinions don't carry any special weight, although I can perhaps be trusted to be particularly impartial in this situation. I haven't been following the dispute here closely and don't have much more to add to this discussion at this time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

One point to make: this goes beyond Australia-China relationships, so far we haven't talked about Afghanistan's response to the Brereton Report's allegations, as well as to Zhao's image. This is a POV that must not be ignored. NoNews! 02:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting point. We could use "digitally altered image" - the description used by the Afghanistan Times. But I fear you are re-writing the Wikipedia rules here. We need to defer to reliable sources, the bulk of them, it's not about getting a good diversity of opinions. The Little Platoon (talk) 03:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand me -- it's not (primarily) about evaluating what descriptors the Afghan government/media use for the image, but their attitude & view towards these incidents (Brereton war crime accusations, Zhao's tweet resulting in China-Australia diplomatic spat). After all they are one of the parties involved; it's not just between Australia and China. NoNews! 04:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Newfraferz87:Hmmn, not really. This article is about a Chinese Communist Party foreign affairs official, Zhao Lijian. That's who the article is about. It's about his actions, who he is. If you want to write content on Afghan-Australian relations on a page that is about Afghan-Australian relations, then I guess you can do that.The Little Platoon (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems that we're discussing a lot of minutiae about sources without addressing the following:

1. Would the terms "digitally-manipulated" and "doctored" cause a meaningful number of readers to believe that the image was derived from a photograph of one person actually menacing another? (That would appear to be an incorrect understanding.)
2. Do the terms "digitally-manipulated" and "doctored" provide a neutral description of the process of creating artwork from photographic sources? (Would you find fault with the use of those terms in an article about an ordinary digital artist who was not involved in this controversy?)
3. Do the terms "digitally-manipulated" and "doctored" represent the assessments of reliable sources, and if so, what is the thesis of those reliable sources? Are they using the terms in the sense of 1. or 2. (which I believe to be problematic), and are they doing so ignorantly or deliberately? (If they are intentionally pejorative, they're entitled to that opinion, but we should be clear that they are not attempting to offer an unbiased report.)
4. Can we represent the viewpoints of parties to the controversy by referring neutrally to the image ("caricature" or "political cartoon", perhaps preceded by "photorealistic") in the first place, then attributing the opinions of other commentators directly to those commentators? (For example, it might be the case that "Australian media decried the photorealistic caricature as a 'digitally-manipulated' or 'doctored' insult to the Australian military, because the image of a solider was modified to suggest that he gratuitously menaced an Afghan child." In that case, we could say "image" not "digitally-manipulated image" in the first sentence of the existing section, without loss of accuracy.)
5. The Wikipedia principle of verifiability, not truth is a minimum standard, not a target. (If you can have both, you should; that sometimes means explaining the context of those sources rather than simply picking the story supported by the majority of sources.)

TheFeds 06:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Those appear to be leading questions based on an inaccurate understanding of the underlying facts of the situation. The “Australian POV” was that this was disinformation. The "Chinese POV" is that this was a misunderstanding about an artwork/cartoon. The doctored/manipulated language is the neutral position. It is not within our remit as wikipedia editors to decipher whether WP:RS are doing something "ignorantly or deliberately” and the idea that this language is restricted to the Australian media is unsupported. I appreciate your opinion but please remember to support your arguments with sources next time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I think its quite clear the terms "doctored/manipulated" are used to describe disinformation and thus are included under the Australian POV. if we use this language it would mean the significant view, reflected in multiple reputable sources above such as WaPo and Reuters, that this may in fact just be an artistic image would be unrepresented. hence why wikipedia would be encyclopedic and give a more neutral term not just the most common term. as NPOV says "A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehighwayman5 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

We don’t actually have any sources which say this was "just be an artistic image,” would you be kind enough to provide whichever source you’re using to make this argument? I havent seen any WP:RS call it disinformation without attributing that statement to the Australian government, however they use faked/doctored/manipulated in their own voice. I think they clearly don’t see them as being one and the same but if you have a source that says they do I would be happy to review it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

1. User:Newfraferz87 showed RS to support that "faked/doctored/manipulated" is Australian POV.
2. "faked/doctored/manipulated" is not POV of China, we also posted RS. You could read more carefully. Lewix (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, I must have missed it then. If you’ve come up with multiple WP:RS already its no work at all to repost them. Which two sources in particular are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back:: I have cited two sources under the fourth point here, as well as reiterated my reply on 13 December in response to your revert. If those are the two sources in particular that you are talking about (no one above you noted "two sources"), it's imperative that you properly look through and criticize them here, along with the arguments, rather than simply dismiss them and feigning ignorance. NoNews! 02:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Your source there doesn't say that "faked/doctored/manipulated" is Australian POV and neither do you, you say "suggesting that they recognize a POV representation of the Australian government” which is a long ways away from them saying that its the Australian gov’s POV. We can’t realistically draw that conclusion though, they don’t actually state it. Is Lewix improperly attributing something to you which you never argued? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

The The New Daily piece kind of works but the strongest they say in their own words is "Despite claims from the Australian government and media that the graphic was “disinformation”, “doctored” or “faked”, it is instead a computer-generated illustration.” but that appears to largely be based on the opinion of an expert from Australian Strategic Policy Institute and doesn’t directly discount the sources which called it both. Note though that the experts quote backs up my argument that the unique point of the Aussie government position is the addition of disinformation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

For SCMP the POV representation is implied; not necessarily directly referring to Australian government, but definitely saying that the term is what some other viewpoint calls it as (=POV) -- otherwise they wouldn't have used quotation marks. Thus we have (see my initial post) a grammatical analysis of the descriptors, and we have at least one source that clearly claims that there is POV. I believe this is enough for us to withhold the urge to quote directly from the reliable sources that use the disputed descriptors, and properly examine the issue as noted by TheFeds. NoNews! 02:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

We don’t do grammatical analysis, that is outside our remit as wikipedia editors as you should know by now. I’m not sure The New Daily is a WP:RS btw, there appear to be significant issues there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Newfraferz87: I'm really glad you pointed us back to your earlier post above. It reminded me of that article in the Washington Post from 30 November 2020. I think it's worth taking in:

"The artwork appeared to be a heavily manipulated composite of a photograph and stylized digital illustration. After Zhao posted it, it immediately sparked an uproar, not only because of its grisly nature but also because it was not immediately clear whether it was based on a real photo of a killing. "

So what that particular reliable source shows you is that, actually, it wasn't at all taken to be some satirical illustration, because "it wasn't immediately clear whether it was based on a real photo of a killing."

I looked at your other statements about point of view and you simply haven't provided any evidence that the 30 or so reliable sources we have that talk about the image as altered or manipulated as being - just for this one news story - suddenly being unreliable. That's the case you need to make but so far neither you or anyone else has.The Little Platoon (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I can't really understand what you guys are arguing about so I would appreciate it if someone could explain it to me simply. as far as I know, there exists two viewpoints regarding the image that it is either 1. a satirical piece of art or 2. a doctored/manipulated image intended to depict a fake event. as I've interpreted the NPOV guideline we are not supposed to sympathize with any particular citation or group of citations and their point of view (it being artwork or manipulation) and present the information in a neutral fashion. if we we're to go with manipulated or doctored as the choice of language it would silence one of the viewpoints in favour of the other and thus we must reword it to reflect the conflicted nature of the event. thanks for the explanation whomever Thehighwayman5 (talk) 04:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

"faked/doctored/manipulated" is not POV of China, we posted RS. As I always said, term without adding any non-neutral attributives should be used unless all POVs are represented. Lewix (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thehighwayman5:@Lewix: Happy to recap. There's no real conflict. The vast majority of reliable sources describe the image as being fake or doctored or manipulated. Wikipedia uses reliable sources for its articles. We therefor use one of the descriptors mentioned. Hence, the article uses the term "manipulated image." The Little Platoon (talk) 11:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm still confused as to how that matters. as the policy on NPOV says "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." While in may be true that its a widespread view that does not mean wikipedia should state it as a fact. furthermore as it says, "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.", and since multiple articles have at least mentioned the contested assertions over it being either artwork or manipulation we shouldn't state the manipulation as fact. Thehighwayman5 (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thehighwayman5:Yes I can see you are experiencing confusion. You have a strong desire not to see the descriptor "manipulated". You feel that it would be more neutral for there to be no descriptor at all. So we would just have the sentence, for example, being "Zhao, Australia and the image." But the great majority of reliable sources, be they from France or the UK or the United States, use a descriptor like "manipulated". I strongly sense you feel disappointed by this. But we must defer to the reliable sources in this matter. Thanks for posting the material about NPOV, all valid. I recommend you read the article on Reliable Sources. Enjoy your weekend.The Little Platoon (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Nothing I read from there supports any "deferment" to reliable sources whatsoever so I'll need you to explain where you're getting this from. the way you make it sound is like you also think "manipulated" is not neutral but since most sources include it or similar phraseology we have to follow what they say. we don't, we are explicitly not supposed to as it says in Neutrality of sources.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehighwayman5 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thehighwayman5: The opening sentence of the content guideline states that all all articles, including this one on Zhao Lijian, "should be based on reliable, published sources." The particular sentence we're talking about describes a tweet that the subject circulated as being a manipulated image. It comes from reliable sources. At that point at least the article has integrity.The Little Platoon (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

yes and there are reliable sources which also include the term artwork or both as acknowledgement of the differing points of views people have regarding the image. its our job to be encylopedic and write the article such that "Intelligent readers will weigh the opposing sides and reach their own conclusions." if you make it say manipulated intelligent readers would be unaware of the controversy surrounding the image. Thehighwayman5 (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I think you make an interesting point just above @Thehighwayman5: you're right, while the bulk of reliable secondary sources use the descriptor "manipulated" there are other descriptors, such as "fake" and "altered image" and "photoshopped". I think you said you've got a reliable source that uses the descriptor "artwork". Equally, there are many, though not widespread, reliable sources that have described the image as propaganda so, by your reckoning, we would need to bring that content in. Please make your proposal below.The Little Platoon (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and another minority voice, but which still comes from a reliable source, describes the image in terms of being "an information war Pearl Harbour" and the image as being "disinformation virus" Should we also include this? Your thoughts?The Little Platoon (talk) 01:38, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I personally think those are just more connotatively bad expressions of the "manipulated" viewpoint/opinion and it represents an insignificant minority opinions but I could see someone make an argument that those are seperate viewpoints possibly. I just want to follow the "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" belief here in wikipedia. My argument for why artwork is a significant viewpoint is that, following what it says in NPOV, "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;", is that Zhao Lijian the very person this article is about is a major adherent of the "Artwork" belief and following him the author himself has expressed they believe it to be "nationalist artwork". on the counterpoint the viewpoint of manipulation would presumably be the Scott Morrison's belief as he believes it to be a "false image" as he said in WeChat. with regards to if its propoganda I'm of the belief the artist made it with intent to propagandize a message that Australia is hypocritical about warcrimes and is part of a general wave of anti-australia sentiments recently but I also think the wikipedia reader should be able to decide for themselves what exactly it is. I know I'm personally in a minority of opinion with regards to the SAS in australia in my belief that the Brereton report should lead to criminal conviction and execution of the commanders responsible following the Yamashita Standard set long ago. I know this belief is likely seldom held and that everyone involved in the incident will probably get off on the warcrimes. sorry for no citations if you really want them I can go pull them up but I've read so many articles about the topic that I'm going to have to keep a notepad. Thank you Thehighwayman5 (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Thehighwayman5: I think if you have a good source for Zhao describing the image as artwork, or similar, that absolutely deserves a sentence. The article is about him after all. It would stand in contrast to the mainstream secondary sources, but that's fine. Again, so long as you have a reliable source, please add that in.The Little Platoon (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hua Chunying called it an illustration [21]"Weixin Official Accounts Platform Operation Center" says fake image is a historical distortion [22]Fu Yu (AKA Qilin) calls it an effort to protect mankind and a fact-based artwork and not chinese government sponsored but grassroots so to speak [23]Chinese embassy in paris (Zhao Jinjun) says the soldier image was a caricature by a painter as reference to france's defense of caricatures of mohammad [24]I haven't been able to find any quotes from him describing it as artwork. he seems to have stop caring after the 29th of november or does not want to defend his own actions so I can only make the assumption that him posting the image alongside his boss saying its artwork means he believes it to be artwork too. if you're able to find any good citations of prominent people asserting a third POV of chinese propaganda that may be worth an inclusion. although, I'd try to follow wikipedia's NPOV guideline [25] and try to "treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." and "Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view.". maybe some sort of wording saying "western consensus has been that the image is doctored propaganda while numerous chinese officials and citizens have fought back claiming it is caricature of a true event" or perhaps more detailed citing specific individuals if you're able to find some good sources. cheers Thehighwayman5 (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@The Little Platoon: There are many terms: "illustration" "artwork" / "fake" "altered image" "photoshopped" / "propaganda", all are refered by one or more RS. The term "image" is the only common consensus, not only for the editors involved, but also for the RS. That's why I suggest the term "image" without adding any non-neutral attributives in the summary sentence. You may use any other terms, on condition that you add descreption which POV the term is.

Another controversy is the majority of reliable sources. The "majority" is biased. Voices from China and reliable sources written in Chinese are excluded, not counted in. I saw an interesting video today. The orignal video was deleted. Just search "sky news carl zha" or find the link here. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Lewix (talk) 00:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I support the use of a neutral description in the first reference to the image, then direct attribution of terms shown to be controversial here to their sources (to the extent that these represent non-fringe positions). Thehighwayman5's quotation of WP:NPOV above was directly on point and unrebutted. I oppose the framing of the issue in the article in any way that does not make clear as the reader is forming their first impressions that this is not based on a single real photograph of a soldier threatening a child, because it is valuable to present information that is both true and verifiable. I similarly oppose describing the process of computer-aided artistry as manipulation, fakery, deception, etc., except if it is shown that this was the artist's intent, or if those terms are presented as the opinion of a cited source. I'm genuinely curious why my position is believed unsatisfactory—to echo The Little Platoon's repeated invocation of what "we" do at Wikipedia, this is all consistent with ordinary practice. TheFeds 10:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

In addition to what adjectives to use, are we also disputing my premise that there is not currently enough information to say whether the image was deception ab initio, as opposed to created for commentary and used by others for propaganda purposes that are agnostic to whether deception occurs or not? As far as I can tell, dispatching that premise requires a synthesis of ideas that has not been directly articulated in a reliable source. (I also haven't read all the sources, so if there's a good one, by all means let me know.) TheFeds 11:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

If no more comments, I suppose we have common consensus for the term "image" without adding any non-neutral attributives in the summary sentence, and for any other terms, on condition of descrebing which POV the term is. Lewix (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

CCTV as a source

@TranscendentMe: this section is for you to explain why CCTV is a WP:RS which we can use in the current context. The lack of independence from the Chinese government etc would appear to preclude its use, especially for controversial statements of fact like you’re trying to use it for. Its also as far as I can tell never been treated as a WP:RS on wikipedia and its primary overseas component CGTN has been WP:DEPRECATED. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: The response of the Afghanistan public in the video should be considered as facts. if you can rule out CCTV or CGTN, I would argue to rule out any reference from VOA and BBC as well, as they lack independence from the US and UK government. TranscendentMe (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to make that argument, but first you need to talk about CCTV as thats the source you’re trying to use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

All or none: BBC, VOA, CCTV should be treated equally. If you agree with that, I will immediately remove all references from all of them.TranscendentMe (talk) 20:26, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately Wikipedia has double standards when it comes to government-affiliated news organizations. "Radio Free X", Voice of America and other similar American government propaganda outlets are considered reliable but others such as CCTV are for some unfathomable reason not reliable. You're wasting your time arguing it here though.PailSimon (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

thanks @PailSimon: for the clarification. Indeed it's a waste of time here. But one finds himself cannot tolerate one-sided narrative and misinformation spreading on WP, as WP helped one a lot with other subjects.TranscendentMe (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the general thought process wikipedia has is that china does not have significant enough press freedom to constitute a reliable source although I don't remember if they give any citations toward that belief or consistently follow that line by registering sources like al jazeera as unreliable. Wikipedia generally just follows the predominant, I believe american, consensus that russia and china are too unfree, shown in congressional bills and mass media like twitter listing china and russia media as state media, while others that are american allies are free enough for citation. its baised but theres probably very little you'd ever be able to do about it. there are certainly many articles I've read over the years that clearly feel like propaganda with ideological or geopolitical bent (anarchist, communist, conservative, liberal, fascist, pro/against any country or alliance Thehighwayman5 (talk) 21:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I would say propaganda in the US is more hidden and tactical. I would doubt US media are freer from political or ideology influence than that in China, misinformation about China are circulating tremendously and political and business leaders promoted media as tools of US diplomacy publicly. see the article from 2010 "Facebook, Twitter and YouTube Are Tools For Diplomacy", I cannot access its original page, but google cache is still available.TranscendentMe (talk) 23:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with TranscendentMe's proposal to treat all government-affiliated sources equally. There are meaningful ways to distinguish these sources, and Wikipedia has a functioning process to do so—as evidenced by the discussions for every entry in the list of deprecated sources. (However, there is a fair criticism regarding the alignment of VOA and Radio Free [something]. A discussion of that point may exist, or could be created at WP:RSN. I didn't see one in the long list at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources.) TheFeds 11:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

It's funny to consider WP's process of review media reliability can guarantee its result: "editors generally expect two or more significant discussions about the source's reliability in the past", unless you have other processes I can hardly believe in this one. Please keep in mind WP is a place edited and maintained by a small group of the public, including a large ratio of amateurs of the topic who gather information mainly from media instead of independent research, that's why it's forbidden to refer to WP in academic study, remember the limitation of WP. One cannot rule out the probability that the attitudes to each media and topic are presumed and influenced by existing propaganda already. That's why sources from Russia and China are "generally" considered "unreliable", sources from Western countries are "generally" considered "reliable", and barely can we see sources from other developing countries. Keep in mind, US and UK have a history of influencing the media and public opinion, selecting and neglecting facts, changing the narrative, as long as USSR，from Peaceful Evolution in the Cold War to Nayirah testimony in the Iraq War and Project PRISM in which cooperated by Google, Microsoft, Apple, etc. Therefore, it is critical to include points of view from all aspects as long as they can provide evidence or reference for public review, then let the reader make the decision themselves what is the fact and truth. I can say from my experience that if you only read in a single language (English) or only gather information from a specific side (Western Media or Russia/China Media), you can hardly see the whole truth. TranscendentMe (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

This conversation really should be over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deprecated_sources that's where the sources mentioned above can be considered. I note the strong idea in preceding comments that wiki only accepts western sources, but if you look at the list of deprecated sources - from Breitbart to Daily Mail - the proscribed platforms are largely Western. There are anti CCP news services that have been deprecated too, such as Epoch Times. The Little Platoon (talk) 04:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this discussion should be considered in the topic of Deprecated sources. Please notice my argument is: references and sources are reliable or not should be based on the evidence and argument they provided. Certain references or sources should be considered unreliable because they fabricate stories with or without a certain agenda behind or cannot provide evidence to support themselves, NOT because they support or oppose something (such as the West or CCP). Certain references or sources should be considered reliable as long as they can provide evidence to verify and coherent argument regardless it's favorable to the public or not. Notice the words WP used for sources: "Generally reliable" doesn't mean always reliable, "Generally unreliable" doesn't mean always unreliable. I consider the word "generally" is used here as a device of convenience to save time and efforts, unfortunately, it sometimes inevitably leads to bias, negligence, and used as political rhetoric.TranscendentMe (talk) 04:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Hacking of Liu's account

@FobTown: I noticed that you reverted "reports of Chinese ambassador Liu Xiaoming's Twitter account being hacked". Sources reported on the hack as follows.
Taiwan News 1:
"the Twitter account of its ambassador, Liu Xiaoming (劉曉明) was hacked"
"making it highly probable that the likes were the work of hackers"
Taiwan News 2:
"the Twitter account of its ambassador, Liu Xiaoming (劉曉明) was hacked"
You edit made it sound as if the hack was only claimed by Liu, which does not reflect the sources. The original language was more accurate and NPOV. CurryCity (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I've made this one more in line with the cited source as well. Endwise (talk) 09:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Zhao quote

@Horse Eye's Back:
Right now we have: "As the culprit and leading instigator of the Ukraine crisis, the US has led NATO to engage in five rounds of eastward expansion in the last two decades after 1999," pushing "Russia to the wall step by step."
It sounds as if primarily US is pushing Russia, but the source says NATO's increased membership, not the US, was quoted as pushing Russia: he said, adding that NATO membership almost doubled from 16 to 30 countries, and pushed “Russia to the wall step by step.” This needs to be updated to reflect the source, as opposed to a synthesis of different parts we have right now. CurryCity (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I have altered the quote to be more in line with the source. Endwise (talk) 08:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The source says "He also portrayed the US as the aggressor. “As the culprit and leading instigator of the Ukraine crisis, the US has led NATO to engage in five rounds of eastward expansion in the last two decades after 1999,” he said, adding that NATO membership almost doubled from 16 to 30 countries, and pushed “Russia to the wall step by step.” It does not say "He also portrayed NATO as the aggressor." We can cut the quote entirely and just say that Zhao portrayed the US as the aggressor in the Russia-Ukraine war if that would make you happy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian addressing the media 31 January 2021.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)