Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Jericho the lion"

This story was added (mistakenly to the "Merchandise" section), by User:Iady391, and then removed by User:Samsara as "vandalism". But it doesn't appear to be vandalism. It looks like a perfectly legitimate and surprising development. Are there any other sources? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The content was duplicated. Carefully check your diffs. Samsara 13:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism? or just a mistake? But thanks, I see there is a single sentence, about Jericho, in "Background"(?) It doesn't really explain that new lion taking over. Given all the fuss we've had about the cubs "likely being killed", this seemed to me more notable. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

There were a lot of overlapping edits flying around at the time - including some of my own. Best check the article in its present form and see if it has the information you are concerned about.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The Telegraph says he's Cecil's brother. I'm surprised by this development (but then, even though I am from Newport, I'm no animal expert). Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I agree with User:DrChrissy
Iady391 | Talk to me here 13:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. But do you think more needs to be added? You have a very odd signature, by the way - I don't think I'll be talking to you on that page! Martinevans123 (talk)

Ref# 55 states "His colleague Andrew Loveridge said the new male lion could be Cecil's former ally Jericho, who was not related to Cecil." [1] I tend to trust an interview with the researchers more than a reporter with The Telegraph.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:50, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree. A strange claim for The Daily Telegraph to make. But about him "looking after the cubs"? Any views on that? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think in the circle of people who deal with lions, they call "brothers" to mean allies. That could really be the reason why the press got it wrong in thinking that they are the actual brothers. The Sky News source clearly said they just teamed up together. The (NatGeo source) is even more clear about the history of these two lions. Another confusion is some think the two prides are one pride. So when they say another lion in the hierarchy will take over and kill cubs, they meant Jericho. Or another lion from another pride to take over, they also meant Jericho. They fears that Jericho will kill all Cecil's cubs (not his own cubs) to force Cecil's lionesses to mate with him to make sure all cubs are his own blood. But so far Jericho hasn't killed Cecil's cubs yet as if he adopt them as his own. Z22 (talk) 14:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it is more a case of "tolerate" than "look after". If he is unrelated to Cecil (assuming they are Cecil's cubs) he would have no fitness-based reason to look after them. Rather the opposite - they are readily available snacks if he wishes to take on the wrath of the mother!DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Jericho was shot and killed today at 4pm local.[2] -- GreenC 19:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Looks like we might need to start a new article Jericho (lion). I really hope this is not true.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Supported by Britain's favourite tabloid, and many others, although with a question mark. No mention of any dentists. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Might be a false story/troll.[3] Suggest holding off adding to article until solid confirmation from authorities. -- GreenC 20:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry it's probably some nurdy computer geek in Spain or somewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed - I have opened a thread below to discuss the relationship between Cecil and Jericho as there is conflicting evidence.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Image of hunter

Is there one at Flickr? Appropriate for inclusion? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The image of a hunter isn't appropriate at all for inclusion. It can be found in articles anyway, it is not necessary to post the image of a living person here without his written permission, or his family, this is clear. You can't just copy a picture from Flickr, as authors have their copy rights. We shouldn't go overboard. The lion is another story, if the picture has no copyright issues.Let keep it simple, and keep the picture of the dentist out of it. Bialosz (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A picture of the dentist wouldn't make a lot of sense, but a picture of the hunter would. He played a huge role in Cecil's life, and isn't someone who just got caught up in something. This is someone who apparently invested a lot of time and money into becoming a (redact BLP) InedibleHulk (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

You may have personal opinions on the subject, but how the image of the person in question would really serve public interest? There is such thing as unreasonable intrusion in private life. And please, review wikipedia guidelines for inclusion of images.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Moral_issues People who post images on Flick own the copy rights, ad give them to public for free use, but the subject's consent maybe needed.Fair use in journalism or education is not the same as fair use in such outlets as wikipedia.Or is it? In doubt review wikipedia guidelines and policies Bialosz (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this will clarify more the situation? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_peopleBialosz (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. In related articles involving the hunting of famous animals, there is sometimes an identified photo of the hunter, e.g. see Champawat Tiger. It may be pertinent that these animals are usually labeled as notorious in some way, e.g. "man-eaters" and they are historical articles, but the photos are there nonetheless.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Champawat tiger photo is from 1907,such old photo is in public domainBialosz (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

His notability is only related to the context of an ongoing criminal investigation and limited to "hunter". Identifying him with an image would run afoul of BLP policy, I believe. The topic is Cecil the lion and an image of the hunter does not expound on the knowledge about Cecil the lion. We're pretty much at the doxxing limit, if not over for Wikipedia. Remember we're not news.--DHeyward (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Image of Cecil

I've written to Zimparks Hwange Official web page requesting a photo of Cecil. Fingers crossed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I've uploaded a fair use image of him. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good. Any opinions from anyone about linking a video? I need another vote to avoid an edit war. Pkeets (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that image. A free replacement is very possible. Just the fact that I've written to Zimparks could disqualify it as non-free. I think it fails WP:NFCCP 1, 2, and 8, at least. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it passes 2 and 8. As for 2: it is a single frame and it's low-resolution (actually a bit wider than the recommended 400 pixels so it could be cropped a bit). It passes 8 since it's used to visually identify the subject of this article at the top of the page (in a similar manner to a biography). As for 1: has the uploader Spaghetti07205 took reasonable effort to find a free alternative? If they did, they should indicate that in the rationale. If this was one of the most famous lions out there, chances are it's been photographed numerous times; some of those images might be with a free license. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Considering the fact that the lion was never really that much known until after his death, I wouldn't call it a very famous lion. But yes, this passes fair use criteria. There weren't many images of the lion because it wasn't that popular. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

All 10 of the non-free criteria must be met. It certainly does not pass 1. There must be a free equivalent out there. And as I said above, I am actively looking for one. #1 says "...Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available..." Well, we have not concluded that because the search is still on. Okay, I agree that it passes 2. I don't think it passes 8 because all lions pretty much look the same (unless you're a lion). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak: I agree that 1 is contingent on the process of search. If the search gets increasingly prolonged, we should determine that reasonable yet inconclusive effort was made to find a free alternative, and 1 is met. I disagree about 8: even if every lion looked pretty much the same, it would be misleading (unencyclopedic) to use a free image of some other lion in this article. This is how 8 and 1 are related: if encyclopedic use (8) can only be met with a non-free image, one can be used (1). I, however, disagree with your premise: not every lion looks the same. Just as people don't look pretty much the same, so don't lions. The article states that Cecil "was identifiable by his black-fringed mane". The context the image is used is per the rationale: "for visual identification of the animal in question, at the top of his article". This is, essentially, the same context as a human biography. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 12:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Umm what source says the video is of Cecil the lion that was killed? YouTube uploaders are not reliable --DHeyward (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: There is no blanket ban on YouTube as a source (WP:YOUTUBE). Anyhow, WP:RS doesn't apply here; this is about WP:NFC. Being on YouTube means the material is previously published (WP:NFCC#4). Obviously, we need to be reassured that the image is of Cecil; the uploader Spaghetti07205 should ammend the rationale to include a link to the video in question so that we can assess this. See the discussion below: Talk:Cecil (lion)#Lead image Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Of course I know that which is why NFC is the rationale I used when I removed the image from the Infobox in my edit summary. We can use "fair use" screenshot claims for WP hosted images in the article, but not the Infobox for identification. The barrier to using the image in the article would be related to commentary about the topic and a reliable source linking the image to the commentary. --DHeyward (talk) 20:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC) --DHeyward (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It is an image of Cecil, see here. Spaghetti07205 (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Cecil's fame

The lion was not only famous in Zimbabwe,as stated in the article, but also in other countries.Found reference, which I put in relation to the article (NPR radio) that people traveled to Africa for the purpose to see him.This may explain his status as tourist attraction, not only for people of Zimbabwe, but people from other countries, from other continents.Bialosz (talk) 22:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The claim that people came from all over the world to see the lion would definitely need to be attributed to the Game Park keeper who certainly has a conflict of interest in pimping his park as a major tourist destination. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I had read accounts of this incident elsewhere and the statements about Cecil's fame. Having not heard of him myself, I was curious about the origins of this fame. I thought the Wikipedia article would shed some light on that, but it does not. It only repeats the claims of his fame, (as do the references). Can anyone add an explanation or some history surrounding Cecil's fame?Timtam58 (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

it seems to me that it is a case of the press not thinking this was anything more than a fluff story not doing significant investigations beyond what the "source" told them. No one has actually been able to produce any coverage prior to the stories of his death that would valid the claims of "fame". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Why devaluate the source from the park as merely "conflict of interests" and "pimping?" The person also decried that the lion was shot for $50 000 when his presence was generating, or able to generate millions from tourists money.People in park know very well from which countries or continents visitors come, why they shouldn't know the demographics? I don't see why they should be an unreliable information source. Bialosz (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Cecil is certainly famous now, but if he was actually famous (or notable) before his death, then someone should be able to find some published discussion of "Cecil the lion" before his death. So far, I see nothing. Lions in particular and large wildlife in general are definitely worth protecting, and can be seen, at least in part, as tourist attractions and of economic benefit to African countries. That does not mean that Cecil as an individual lion was "famous" before his death. Maybe he was. Where's the evidence, other than credulous assertions published after his death? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I want to clarryify why I wrote the OP: the discussion if the article should be deleted or not was going on, and in the article itself it was information that Cecil was famous in Zimbabwe, there were suggestions, or suggestion that he was only a local celebrity. This was a start. So, wrote this in order to see what other people may know about it, if they will agree with me, or prove me wrong, what sources they could add, etc. Events like this, as you noticed probably, can be surrounded by conflicted information, media coverage change, and so on.At this stage we know already much more than on July 30.Thank you fellow editors for your voices in this discussion :) You had valid concerns, of course, thanks for the imput. Bialosz (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Lead image

I don't think it is a good idea to put an image that is not Cecil in the info box. People could mistakenly assumed it is Cecil. This article is about a specific lion and the image should not be replaced with soothing similar just because it is in the same subspecies as Cecil. We should either remove it or move it and wait until someone can find a free image of Cecil. If not, then we can justify the non-free image. Z22 (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I worded the caption so that readers would be hard-pushed to make that mistake. I put the image there because I amagine the page is being viewed a lot and it just looked so strange having an infobox with no image.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the picture was added "just for the sake of including pictures". I think an animal of the same species is useful enough to include. The caption should easily make it clear it's not Cecil. That's what captions do. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think if we want to help readers to visualize what we are talking about, maybe at least put the image in the Background section. Not the info box. At least I for one thought it was another image of Cecil because it was places in such prominent spot, until I found out sometime later that it is not his image. Z22 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Marius (giraffe) has a lead image of several giraffes - not one of Marius.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above (Talk:Cecil (lion)#Image of Cecil) for why I think we can use a non-free image of Cecil (provided that it actually is Cecil). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 15:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you could "find out later" by reading the caption? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have emailed the Oxford research group requesting one of their images of Cecil - they probably have hundreds.DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, did assume that was Cecil. I'd lean more towards no picture than picture that is not Cecil. Hopefully they'll give us a pic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think very many people would "assume it was Cecil" on coming to the article for the first time. Until they read the caption? We do assume readers actually read the article, don't we? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I read this article many times, but still made that simple mistake . Hope Oxford will provide a free image. They just got $300,000 in recent donations from the public. Hope they can give up their right of one image to the public out of thousands of images that they have. Z22 (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You might be getting confused. The image that was not Cecil was only up for a couple of minutes. The previous image that you saw was Cecil but someone decided to remove it for free access reasons. Personally, I don't see a problem with having a photo not of Cecil, so long as we do not claim it is Cecil.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Err, why was the image of Cecil removed? Alakzi (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure User:DHeyward will explain all. But, as User:Anna Frodesiak told us in the earlier discussion: "All 10 of the non-free criteria must be met". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have restored the non-free image of Cecil File:Cecil the Lion.jpg because it was removed without consensus. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 20:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Bloody hell! I don't know about other editors but I am extremely irritated by this. I have spent a long time looking for suitable images and taking the time to email the research group. This is damn close to disruptive editing if an editor has deleted something against consensus.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair-use claims can only be used for commentary, not identification. It has to be removed from the infobox as there is no dsicussion or commentary in the infobox. The image can go in the article itself to help illustrate a comment or topic. Identification is limited only to dead persons where a non-free alternative is not available per WP:NFC. --DHeyward (talk) 20:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, Cecil's now a person? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

But don't you see? The fact that we're waiting to hear from the research group means that we don't yet know that there is no free image available - hence, the non-free image cannot be used. StAnselm (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NFC does not contain the word "animal"!DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: said: "Fair-use claims can only be used for commentary, not identification." However, contextual significance explicitly allows for the use of non-free images for identification: "Two of the most common circumstances in which an item of non-free content can meet the contextual significance criterion are: [1.] where the item is itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article, or [2.] where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article." (WP:NFC#Meeting the contextual significance criterion).

@DHeyward: said: "Identification is limited only to dead persons where a non-free alternative is not available per WP:NFC". I presume they mean WP:NFCI which says: "10. Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." However, note that the list says "The following list is not exhaustive but contains the most common cases where non-free images may be used". The same aspects of a deceased person (contextual significance, not replaceable by a free image etc.) apply to the picture of Cecil. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, so perhaps the guideline should explicitly say that? I simply don't regard Cecil the lion as a "dead person". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Finnusertop: Correct, it needs commentary to include the image in context. Not just identifcation. Whence, not in the infobox. Note also that "item" is the copyrighted image, not what the image depicts. Cecil isn't copyrighted, the image item is. This is important. We don't have critical commentary about the youtube video. What it depicts is irrelevant for "item." A recent example is the "Vanity Fair" cover that depicts Caitlyn Jenner. The item is the cover. We can use a fair0use image of the cover of Vanity fair to discuss "Vanity Fair" coverage in the media. We can not use the image to depict or identify the subject on the cover, rather we use it to discuss the image. The "item" is the image itself, not what is depicted. --DHeyward (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The article specifically discusses Cecil's look such as black-fringed mane as one of the main reason for being a favorite at the park. Therefore, yes, the article discusses about the look of Cecil. Also the cited article include his posture as regal, so we can talk about that in the article and people can see the image for themselves to get clarification. Z22 (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: The policy allows for the two distinct kinds of uses I cited above: [1.] the item iteself as the subject of commentary (which you refer to), or, [2.] identification of the object. I'm talking about the latter case and it's the one applied to whenever non-free images appear in infoboxes: for albums, biographies etc. I'm not arguing for the item itself as the object of discussion (as it is done on the article on Caitlyn Jenner). Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 21:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And that source likely contains an image that was being discussed and we could use fair-use rationale in that section. The depiction of Cecil, though, is not copyrighted the image is. That particular image or video of Cecil (which is the copyright) is not discussed. It's the video itself that has to be discussed. A screenshot from the movie "American Sniper" might be a great depiction of the Iraq War but we cannot use it to identify the Iraq War. We could possibly use it to depict the copyrighted work where that work was discussed. The "item" that is copyrighted is the image, not "Cecil". If we were identifying the a famous video of Cecil, we could use a fair use claim to identify the famous video just as album cover art is used to describe album, not the image in the cover. The example also given is cutting the rose out of an album art to depict a "Rose". That's not allowed. We cannot lift an image from a copyrighted video to generically identify the topic. It has to be in context of the copyrighted item. --DHeyward (talk 21:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC) @Finnusertop: is above too. It fails the latter case as well because the copyrighted object is the video, not Cecil. Like the an album is a copyrighted object.--DHeyward (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, "obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely" is not met. Given the coverage and popularity, I suspect a free image is very likely. Much more likely if we leave the image section blank. Much less likely if we have non-free image. --DHeyward (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Surely there's a difference between "is available" and "is likely to be available sometime in the future"? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@DHeyward: I believe that you have mixed up item and object. By object, the policy doesn't mean the uploaded file. The "object, style, or behavior" is what the article is about (the subject of the article). An album (rather than its cover image) can be the object that is the subject of an article. Similarly, the item that is the cover image (rather than the album as object) can be the subject of discussion. I agree that since we have emailed copyright holders it's not unreasonable to anticipate that a free alternative should arise. If those requests fail, we need to return to the issue to determine whether it is no longer reasonable. On my part, I feel like this discussion is running in circles, so I would appreciate input from a third user who is more familiar with the non-free content policy than I am.

@Martinevans123: This is essentially the same as spending some time searching for existing images that might have a free license. Reasonable effort should be made to find a free image before using a non-free one. It is my opinion that sending some emails is reasonable- Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sending some emails is fine, I'm sure. But one often doesn't know when, or even if, an email will be answered. You seem to be suggesting that User:DrChrissy's email request is part of the required process. And that we can't re-post a non-free image until a response is received. Is that correct? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: Yes, I think this is part of the process. I don't have an opinion on whether we can re-post a non-free image. Since the image has been removed and restored a few times over already, I don't think there is consensus. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 22:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know why people are adding the picture back in. As noted above, the are multiple reasons for exclusion: (a) it cannot be said with certainty that no free images exist, (b) it can only be used if there is commentary on the image itself, (c) if it is in the infobox it's not used for purposes of commentary, only identification, and (d) the exception for dead people does not apply since Cecil was not a person. I don't really see any counter-arguments to these, and no real reason to include the picture, apart from the claim that there is "no consensus to remove". StAnselm (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Then the rules are SNAFU and this is a good case for IAR because it we can't put an image of Cecil in the infobox something is broken. The only argument that isn't pedantry is that a tourist might release a free image in the future. Until they do all images are copyright by default, only until they are released under a free license do they become free. One could always claim a free image *might* exist somewhere now or in the future, but that is an unreasonably high burden. A best effort has been made to find free images. -- GreenC 02:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

That might address the first argument, but there are still three other arguments above. I don't think IAR ever applies to copyright issues here. StAnselm (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This all seems incredibly over-complex. It would be so easy for someone to get a slightly obscure photo of a male Southwest African lion, save it to wikicommons stating it was their own work and that the image was of Cecil, then use this as the lead image here. I suspect there would be only a handful of people who would know any different! (Please note I am NOT' suggesting someone does this.)DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• A BIG THANK YOU to Daughter#3 who made lots of photos available on flickr. I have added one to commons and then to the infobox, but there are many more here. The lesson here, folks, is that we sometimes have to wait (and ask) for free images to become available. Thanks to those people who did the asking. StAnselm (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd certainly congratulate you on finding a really good image and one that is, in my opinion, better than the original. Plus another at Commons. So maybe it was worth this "extended discussion" after all. We should all thank User:DHeyward for being so persistent. Haha. I have often found flickr a useful first port of call for rock stars - flickr users who have large collections often attach "copyright fully reserved" tags, but are very amenable to one or two being changed to a Sharealike Commons license, if asked politely. The thought that their work will appear here is often an incentive. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Is Jericho Cecil's brother?

With the apparent killing of Jericho today, I think it is extremely important we get our facts correct here, otherwise, inaccurate or misleading edits will not reflect well on WP.

• This source states "His colleague Andrew Loveridge [a member of the Oxford research team] said the new male lion could be Cecil's former ally Jericho, who was not related to Cecil" (my emphasis) [4]
• However, this source [5] states "It is with huge disgust and sadness that we have just been informed that Jericho, Cecil's brother has been killed at 4pm today,"(my emphasis) the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force said Saturday on Facebook.

There is clearly some disagreement about their relationship and I think we should steer clear of entering it into the article until we are sure.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/01/us-zimbabwe-wildlife-lion-jericho-idUSKCN0Q63CQ20150801 Samsara 20:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This article clearly explains the whole history that Cecil was with his brother named Leander at least since 2008. In 2009 Leander got killed in a flight with another family (father and son) and that left Cecil to start his own pride. With the wide area that Cecil had to cover his territory, in 2013, he was forced out by 2 lions to a different part of the park. There he teamed up with Jericho (not related) to re-establish the pride, and the two defended the territory together until Cecil's death. Z22 (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"His brother was called Leander, after Sir Leander Starr Jameson..."[6] DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Reports later today indicate Jerico's GPS collar is working and moving. NBC's evening news reported that officials have suspended hunting of big game in the area. Pkeets (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope it wasn't reporting 500 mph @ 35,000 ft --DHeyward (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note, the "Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force" [7] isn't on good terms with either the preserve or the government. I am not sure he would be allowed in the park. That organization is fueling a lot of the pressure to change laws and regulations. I am not sure they would be reliable for information about happenings within the park. The account that that Jericho has been killed has been disputed by Oxford and the Park. Oxford provided GPS information that indicated he was alive. --DHeyward (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Since there is still an ongoing dispute whether Jericho is dead or not, we should just not include in the article for now until things get cleared up one way or the other. Z22 (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed it until the matter is resolved. WWGB (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

They are not brothers:"Oxford University Department of Zoology/WildCRU, whose study lion was Cecil, also said that Jericho is alive and well. The department also mentioned that both Jericho and Cecil are not brothers, and that unrelated male lions form coalitions to defend their territories." Freshly clarified today as you see, abcnews.Bialosz (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Consequences section

Do we really need the consequences section now? It's basically saying that life continues as normal. For a while there were fears that Cecil's cubs would be killed, but that doesn't look like it's happening, and that makes the section redundant. StAnselm (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel that because infanticide is such a regular occurrence when a pride's male dies, the fact that Jericho took over and did not kill the cubs is noteworthy.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Aye. It used to essentially say life continued as normal. If they were simply killed, that'd be that. Now there's an entirely new group dynamic, and room for further developments in it.

If Rage Against the Machine went quietly into that good night, it'd be a mere section. Since Cornell stepped in to crank it up a notch, it's a whole article. Clearly, the Hwange National Park is no Soundgarden, and the #CatLivesMatter backlash has shown no lion is no match for no human. But scaled down to pride proportions, a band's whole article roughly equals a mere section about a famous lion's kids.

Simba has the best of both worlds, being a famous dead lion's kid who happens to sound and act like a human. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Dentist 2

Re:[8] Is there some previous consensus about this or do I need to start an RfC? -- GreenC 01:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Which removal offends you: the middle name, the occupation or the home state? WWGB (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Middle name seems unnecessary. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I think "dentist from Minnesota" should go back. It is contextual information widely reported in reliable sources. Just Chilling (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Just because something is widely reported does not mean we have to include it in Wikipedia. It is also widely published where he lives, that he has two children, and that he committed sexual harassment. We don't include that either, because it is all irrelevant to the killing of the lion. Likewise, nothing suggests that Minnesotans or dentists are more inclined to kill wildlife. WWGB (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of a straw man. Nobody is suggesting that "Minnesotans or dentists are more inclined to kill wildlife", not least the media outlets that describe him that way. I'd regard his occupation, place of residence and age and relevant biographical detail. But they certainly need not appear in the lede. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Good job he wasn't from Arkansas.

The whole name needs to go. "An American big game hunter" is all we need to say. We are NOTNEWS and until the criminal bit plays out, his name should not be mentioned. It's NEWSY and could blow over in a week but be immortalized here forever. The mob outrage needs some time and space to see if it's encyclopedic. professional safari hunts go on all the time and enormous license fees and taxes support these refuges as well as endangered animals. The poll in the CEcil's home country said most were unaware of who the lion was. As a contrast, a hunter pays $50k for a license plus lodging. An observer pays $3k. No one would have blinked if the refuge had said the 12 y/o lion needs to be replaced with a younger male to keep the genetic line strong and sold hunting rights to support keeping the refuge. This happens in the U.S. with endangered species that become overpopulated. They sell licenses to hunt Bighorn Sheep which this hunter paid an enormous fee (i think it was $100k) to hunt one of two that were designated for culling. Not many people make $100k donations to wildlife funds and the Bighorn Sheep would have been culled by the government except for the lottery. It's not clear this person did anything wrong so naming him in WP is not encyclopedic or okay by BLP standards.. --DHeyward (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Except he's not "an American big game hunter", is he. He's a dentist. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

MNo, he's a big game hunter. Did you know of him before this? Any articles on his dentistry or is it all about his hunting? Those are rhetorical questions and it's clear any notability derives from his hunting. Any press releases from the American Dental Society? "4 out of 5 dentists prefer lion." I didn't think so. --DHeyward (talk) 10:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Whether I’d heard of him before is irrelevant. You’re saying that he makes him living as a big game hunter? I thought that was just a hobby. Perhaps we shouldn’t mention he’s American? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC) But please don't call me Mo.

Amercican is related to the law and the outrage. Dentist has no bearing on his notability and is part of a doxxing and shaming campaign that includes his name and city. Sorry, but it's inexcusable. --DHeyward (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Dentist has no bearing on his notability and is part of a doxxing and shaming campaign" - that's BS, every single source says he is a dentist from MN. Every single source considers this information relevant. Otherwise you're left wondering who he is, where is he from. Is he a movie star? A rich business man? A famous politician? What is Wikipedia hiding by not telling this information that every single source says, including every source in the article. Leaving this information out creates its own weird Wikipedia-world POV problem, out of line with the sources. -- GreenC 14:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If we're gonna exclude "dentist", we need to add "recreational" before "big-game hunter". Otherwise it would read as if that's his full time occupation. It's not. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Martinevans1234, those are already 9 comments of yours,dentistry related arguing about words, plus additional several links about dentistry to WP articles, irrelevant, attempts to be funny, also trying to taunt other users on occasion. What are you trying to accomplish here on this discussion page? This is already second section about dentist.Do you still claim you have the quality of the article in mind? Bialosz (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'm not sure I started this second thread, did I? Yes feeble attempts, I'm afraid. But so glad you spotted them. Martinevans123456 (talk) 11:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The word "dentist" currently appears once in the article (although the pedants will no doubt remove it again, quoting some policy or another), but nine of the references specifically refer to the hunter as a dentist. Why do so many people on Wikipedia set themselves up as in some way superior to the world at large? These sort of attitudes are what makes Wikipedia the joke that it still is in so many places and are what drove me from writing any more articles here (in my former user names I have created in excess of 200 articles but now just pop in here when I am bored in the real world. 78.147.163.113 (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Patent Clerk Einstein" is why we aren't news. Please name patents approved and declined by Einstein. Please name other patent clerks that created long lasting models of the universe. Oh, nobody really cares in the long run and demonizing or deifying an occupation unrelated to notability isn't encyclopedic. --DHeyward (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Martinevans123, it is not relevant who started the second discussion, (the other seemed to go nowhere anyway) the point was about waisting time and inapropriate bahviour when people tried to give relevant comments. And in general, apart from my address to user Martinevans,previous dentist section is already deleted.WP discussion page is not a forum. I agree with 78.147... that this sort of attitudes can drive someone away. It can be a problem on WP, not only this article: I read articles why so few women are wikipedia editors, former female editors said that attitudes and discussions drove them away, and they don't perceive WP as serious enough anymore. Sorry...Bialosz (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Famous?

First, if this lion really was famous, as this article asserts, then it should be easy to provide some evidence of that fame before its death. Where are the journal articles, news reports, books, etc, from before 1 July 2015?

If this lion was famous before its death, then significantly more of this article would be about the lion and significantly less about its death. As things stand, about 3/4 of the article is about the death and reaction to it. So, as an article about the death of the lion, not about the lion itself, it should be moved to a more appropriate title, such as Death of Cecil the lion.

Then, as an article about the death of this lion, we must avoid it becoming a coatrack to attack one or more American dentists or other individuals. (Shock - man kills animal. Film at 11.) BLP (and BLP1E) applies to people acccused of crimes, just like everyone else.

I've just heard on the BBC news, a local person stating that Cecil was very famous in Zimbabwe and that tourists would often request to see him before any other animals. The (method of) death of a famous animal can often cause our coverage of the death to become the focal point of the article, e.g. see Marius (giraffe) and Topsy (elephant).DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up, there is actually no claim that Marius the giraffe was famous before his death. This lack of being famous was discussed at the talk page - we should read it as a precedent.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I've only heard of tourists that had seen "Cecil" making it famous. People in Zimbabwe were polled and outside the preserve had no clue about Cecil nor cared that it was killed. --DHeyward (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

There was an explanation on why this particular lion was famous before his death. He was photogenic and allowed tourists to get closer to him. This attracted a large sum of tourism money (see explanation here). This article also reveals a bit of research data on the movements of his pride before his death. That can be a good material to add to this article. Z22 (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

YesZ22, this is a very good explanation, and I already inserted the link to this particular National Geographic article yesterday, it was the first link as it was in intro section of the article.Bialosz (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This article states that the death of Cecil caused tourism drop to Zimbabwe. His absence in Hwange is not the only reason, negative backlash relating to his death is one factor, but people from other countries than Zimbabwe who planned to come to see him specifically are also canceling their trips, etc.Would people from other countries/continents travel specifically to see Marius the giraffe? No.I think it is important to take in account that death of a an animal considered precious, in such circumstances creates more material about given animal than during the animal's life time.http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/07/30/zimbabwe-cecil-lion-dentist/30886959/ Bialosz (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It's mostly people outside Zimbabwe go to see the preserve. "Cecil" is the name Oxford researchers gave it. I'm not sure how common that name is in Zimbabwe. Westerners mainly in the U.S. are riled up similar to how they feel when a culture kills and eats horses or dogs. Zimbabwe sells lion hunting licenses in the same manner that states sell deer or elk hunting licenses. I haven't seen that the local population is riled about it. --DHeyward (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I know that mostly people outside of Zimbabwe go to see the preserve.I am not sure if the popularity of the name Cecil in Zimabawe has any relevance here.We are getting stuck to too many details, I think.Bialosz (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

White House petition

Criminal justice proceedings in the United States are not subject to White House website petitions, including the speed with which extradition proceedings are initiated. In fact, no real processes of the federal government are subject to these White House website petitions; they are a public relations device for the present administration which permits citizens to express themselves. Inclusion of this trivia in the article leaves our readers with a false impression that such petitions have a meaningful effect when they do not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point!Bialosz (talk) 21:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done I have removed the sentence. StAnselm (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If the White House had not been forced to respond, you'd have a point, but now that they have, it's worth noting, and any later action by them would then determine whether we should keep or delete the content. Until then it's notable enough for inclusion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

There will be no later action. This is all the response will say. If for some reason it doesn't, then maybe include. When one outcome (the non-outcome) is so obvious, it seems cruel to leave this here and get little kids' hopes up. Not cool to string the adults along, either, but not cruel because they should know better. "The people" can't force the White House to do anything, even respond:

"To avoid the appearance of improper influence, the White House may decline to address certain procurement, law enforcement, adjudicatory, or similar matters properly within the jurisdiction of federal departments or agencies, federal courts, or state and local government in its response to a petition. Where possible, we will notify signers of petitions whose content falls into these areas, in instances in which we don't feel we will be able to respond meaningfully." InedibleHulk (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I edited the We the People petitioning system Wikipedia entry to include Dirtlawyer1 awesome summary. We'll see how long until some politically correct person nukes it out from orbit. PR device? Can't say that!, for sure! It's bound to hurt a bunch of people's feelings. XavierItzm (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with user BullRangifer that the petition is noteworthy. However, I don't think mention belongs under Criminal Investigations as the petition is only tenuously linked to criminal proceedings as user Dirtlawyer1 points out. I think mention belongs firmly under the Overseas section here Reactions to killing Selector99 (talk) 08:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Zimbabwe information minister's response

Do we really need this informal response on wikipedia? (Among Reactions, Government Officials part) As the source already notes that Prisca Mumpfira, Zimbabwe's information minister didn't issue an official response yet.We had already tweet by Mark Rubio quoted in the body of the article. This her personal and first informal response, when asked.We don't know when the question was asked, how was formulated, and so on.I think it is premature to post it before the official issues a formal response.Bialosz (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the article currently seriously lacks comment from Zimbabwean government officials so think this should be included. Reuters as a news source is no tabloid but instead one of the most respected (if not the most respected) news agency by consumers and industry alike. I concede it's awkwardly written so could be improved to read more encyclopedically, but I think it nicely represents government sentiment at the time of asking which would have been either the date of publication or the day before (it's Reuters, remember). I've read on Wiki editing pages something about "just state the facts" and think this is a factual record of a response - albeit, informal although I'm not sure how informal government ministers ever are - unless there's a suggestion that the minister was speaking off the record and Reuters published regardless. There's no pseudo-Rubio political point be made, just a record of a fact. There's no shame in the minister not knowing about Cecil - locally this was a non-story until global and social media blew it up. Selector99 (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Good point, thank you for your imput!Bialosz (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

And I added the response from Zimbabwe's environment minister, from a press conferenceBialosz (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope the edits last as I appreciate we're underming my contention above of little local government comment in the article. Looks like we were editing around the same time - when I clicked to preview my editing your new edits popped up. Most confusing at this time of day. Selector99 (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, now there is even less reason to include the (initial) response from the (acting) information minister. StAnselm (talk) 00:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with StAnselm here. A careful reading of the sources indicates the information minister's response is from earlier in the week, before First World media made big hash out of a lion's hunt (African governments issue one new permit for lion hunting every 36 hours on average). The environmental minister's response comes out later, when the small event has become a big event. Also note: the lion was killed almost a month before the environment minister's grandstanding. XavierItzm (talk) 07:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

My main reason for backing inclusion can no longer be lack of official comment from Zimbabwe included in the article and, to be fair, my personal knowledge of the place tells me the information minster (general government policy spokesperson with responsibility for regulating media - TV, newspapers, radio) was not the ideal minister to approach about the death of a cat. But like user XavierItzm, I still think the response is perfectly indicative of official sentiment at time of asking. The entire article is heavily ladened towards condemnation of the lion's killing although there's another (much smaller but still significant) point of view that's not so sympathetic which is hardly detectable from the article so far. The minister's (acting minister = de facto minister) candid response is as close as the current article gets to recording anybody saying, 'this isn't as important as the world's making out'. Selector99 (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Background: Lifespan of wild and captive male lions

It is estimated there are between 25,000 and 30,000 lions alive in Africa.[16] In 2013, 49 hunted lion carcasses were exported from Zimbabwe as trophies;[6] the 2005-2008 Zimbabwe hunt "off-take" (licensed kills) average was 42 lions per year.[17]

That is useful information. Could someone add the average life expectancy at birth and at age 13 years (Cecil's age) of wild and captive male lions?

Rocky143 (talk) 11:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Airlines

Reuters - Major U.S. airlines end trophy hunter shipments after Cecil outcry

Worthy of inclusion? May suggest longer term consequences. -- Callinus (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure -- not as a separate section, but a sentence would be good. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think worthy of inclusion, but we have to be careful of the wording. [9][10][11][12] Delta Airlines have announced the ban, but have refused to give a reason for the ban. Inclusion would be bordering on [WP:OR]. It is an obvious response, and a response to petitions set up, but reliable sources have to say it is a response, and if the airlines are not giving a reason then we have problems. Looking at the NY times article, airlines such as South African Airways, and Emirates, Lufthansa and British Airways started banning shipments earlier this year. Martin451 16:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The petition to Delta Airlines on change.org p/delta-air-lines-end-the-transport-of-exotic-animal-hunting-trophies was started three months ago, two months before the killing of Cecil. Martin451 16:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

But the decision to do it came after... All we have to do is go with what reliable sources say. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure many secondary sources will see the decisions as connected, and may say so. They should certainly be added. This is the first "real" consequence to come of the incident in four days? Earlier decisions can give context. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as long as we use RS, we can let them do the SYNTHesis and we're in the clear and can use what they write. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Palmer contacts US Wildlife

Last week I read that Palmer's attorney had contacted US Wildlife. Why isn't this included in the article already? Pkeets (talk) 05:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Because then he wouldn't look cowardly! But yeah, that's not cool. Added it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)