Jump to content

Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Revisiting notability of Walter Palmer

When the original story about Palmer killing Cecil first surfaced, we concluded that for the time being, Cecil was the more notable of the more two, and should be the one having an article, with the possibility that Palmer might in due course become notable himself. At the time, it was unclear to what extent Bronkhurst and Ndlovu would receive additional coverage, but in terms of the international media, they have since received very little attention. We also said that we might have to revisit the issue of whether Palmer would become notable in his own right, at a later point in time. I believe the time has now come to re-discuss whether Palmer should have his own article.

He's been accused, vilified, "not charged" (at least for the time being, as it may be that the organisation that says it wants to see him in court in the US actually follows through) and yet slapped with a hunting ban. Meanwhile, his partaking of international hunting tourism has led to changes at some airlines concerning the transport of trophies. Other material about his life, such as the fine over his bear permit offence, has surfaced as by-catch in the international press. On the flip-side, there was also coverage of how the public responded to the revelations, including a claim of threats against his family, and the notion that Palmer had to go into hiding. This article covers both of those points. More colourful publications painted him "the world's most hated man".[1][2][3]

So is it time to give him his own article? Samsara 04:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of lasting notability beyond this single event and its rapidly-waning aftermath? I'm no fan of trophy hunting, but it seems like it's past time to drop the stick with this guy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I understand this is an emotional issue for some, but let's please focus on making the correct encyclopaedic decision. It looks like this incident has been the biggest news for the Southern African tourist industry perhaps since the end of apartheid or so. Tourism is a significant component of GDP for these countries, and the decisions made by Palmer are ultimately causal to the ban on trophy hunting in Botswana and the suspension in Zimbabwe as well as the change in airline policies regarding transport of hunting trophies. Are all of these decisions final? Who knows? But having held the interest of news organisations and the public for some two and a half months, this is clearly more than 15 minutes of fame (or notoriety) imo. Samsara 07:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
You seem to have made my point for me. You're talking about political changes in hunting policies in African countries, not anything having to do with Palmer's life and works. It's apparent that this single event is notable and may have a lasting impact on hunting policies in Africa, which are reasons to have an article on this event and the ramifications of it for African politics and big-game hunting. It's far less apparent that the person who sparked this controversy is notable in and of himself, given the total lack of public notice or interest in his life and works either before or after the event. This looks to me like a textbook example of what WP:BLP1EVENT was made to cover. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
That again would strongly argue for including the bear incident, as it shows that Palmer is the key person here - not a random tourist, but a tourist with the kind of energy that causes things to go pear-shaped with some regularity. Samsara 09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
No, the killing of Cecil was the event that triggered this. The spotlight is on trophy hunting in general. Palmer incurred the wrath of whipped-up public sentiment but is otherwise not particularly notable. That what he did was legal moves the focus even further away from him and on to the activity. The killing of Cecil is still a notable event but not because of any wrongdoing by Palmer. --DHeyward (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, definitely WP:BLP1EVENT. Palmer certainly hasn't become notable in the last month. StAnselm (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't follow. I'd say he became notable at the end of July. Samsara 09:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd also say both of you need to re-read the policy you just cited, as the third condition is not met: If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. His role was both substantial and well-documented, and the event is significant. Samsara 09:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
He was the hunter. The legal hunter who did nothing wrong. The bear story is not relevant to the hunt. The extradition is simply false. Zimbabwe cut all hunting permits so there is nothing remarkable about about inviting him as a tourist. The parts that are relevant to Palmer are the public's reaction/protests/etc. But it is improper to leave a bunch of innuendo that implies he did anything illegal. The bear story has no relevance to CEcil's killing. Zimbabwe never asked to extradite Palmer. Palmer is not notable outside this event and his role in killing Cecil is that every action he took was legal. This article is not a coatrack for every Palmer big-game hunt. Nor is it a place to synthesize a connection between two unrelated events. --DHeyward (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The nuance you're missing is the difference between a suspension and a ban. If you want to claim that the press is misinterpreting words of a government official, YOU have to provide sources for that. Until you do, it's an original claim on your part. Samsara 13:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
"innuendo that implies he did anything illegal" .. huh what? Source please? That's your opinion. If we are giving opinions, I think the government doesn't want him back as a hunter because they don't want to be embarrassed if he gets involved in a second incident, legal or otherwise, because the press will be watching Palmer like a hawk turning his every move and comment into a media circus. -- GreenC 13:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The bear story is pure innuendo that he did something wrong dur Cecil's hunt. It's COATRACK material unrelated to cecil. --DHeyward (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. We did not place the article in this context, the press did - see for yourself. Samsara 17:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The press seemed to think this event gave a fuller picture of Palmer as a person. I'd tend to agree with them. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
This article isn't about "Palmer as a fuller person" nor is fleshing out details in his life relevant to the death of cecil. cecil wasn't a bear. cecil didn't trigger a fine or any finding of wrongdoing. This article isn't a coatrack for hanging stuff about palmer on. Let it go. --18:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Why are you not signing your posts? This is the second time. Use four tilde's ie. ~~~~ -- GreenC 18:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for telling us that Cecil wasn't a bear. But yes, I doubt Palmer needs a coat rack. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A few points:

  • Proper handling depends on the scope of the article. As I argue in the section below re: the article title, the page should encompass both Cecil as an animal and the death of Cecil as an event. As such, material is not coatracked if it improves the reader's understanding of either of these topics.
  • Palmer is certainly not a suitable subject for an independent article, per BLP1EWP:1E.
  • The fact that the media included information about other hunts should be taken into account, but does not bind our hands. We employ our own editorial discretion.
  • The significance of these other hunts is best framed as an opinion and attributed as such, if explicitly stated at all.
  • It is not necessary to state what the significance is, if there's simply consensus that it's relevant context. Whatever conclusions the reader is meant to draw or might be imagined to draw, for good or ill, are not BLP violations so long as they're just in the reader's head.

Rhoark (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

An excellent summary. Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Rhoark: Can you just confirm that you've read clause 3 of BLP1E? Because it seems that two editors already commented not having read that. If you did, can you explain how the event was not significant, or Palmer role not substantial or well-documented? Thanks - I just think the policies we cite should actually fit the case we're talking about. Samsara 20:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
It is definitely a BLP issue to highlight a single hunt, of many, simply because Palmer paid a fine. It has no relevance to Cecil or the hunt of Cecil. It exists only to paint Palmer, who is not accused of any crime and was cleared, as a criminal. That is not acceptable under BLP. It's COATRACK material where the "Cecil" article is being used to disparage a living person. --DHeyward (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it does, the relevance is documented in the source - it is the only other known hunt in which he got in conflict with authorities. Shall we run an RfC on it? Because I think we're going around in circles by ourselves. In fact, we probably need two separate RfCs at this point. Samsara 21:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Samsara: While I would argue the event was not significant (contrasted with being notable), WP:1E is more in line with the principle I had in mind. Rhoark (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Article should make clear the hunter acted legally because he had permits

Editor Nomoskedasticity reverted an edit that stated "Cecil was legally wounded with an arrow" in the summary. It is a BLP issue to cite a living person's actions in a detrimental light without clarification that the living person acted perfectly legally. XavierItzm (talk) 08:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

While there may be an act known as legal killing there is no such thing as "legal wounding". That is usually known as "cruelty". WWGB (talk) 08:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Xavier, I gather you think hunting is a bad thing? But why should that matter? Palmer evidently doesn't think hunting is a bad thing. I see no reason why he would object to it being known that he wounded Cecil with an arrow. There's a false premise here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
So, is this a forum or a TP? How about WWGB's comments of "cruelty"?
With regard to the summary, it is quite unclear that the hunter acted legally at all times, except one has to read all the way to the summary to figure this out. XavierItzm (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I also disagree that this is necessary or useful. What I think would be useful is mentioning in the lede that the animal was lured out of the park, to avoid misdirecting the reader as to the locality. Samsara 11:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Would you wish to imply that the actual hunter was involved in that "luring"? Collect (talk) 12:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Why would you ask such a baiting-style question, Collect? Shouldn't you be above that? Samsara 17:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Read WP:AGF before making snarky comments, please. If Palmer was not involved in the "luring" then WP:BLP seems to require that we not link him to the "luring." Collect (talk) 21:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
As a purely grammatical thing, I changed the redundant phrase "legal permit" to "permit" in the lead. There's no such thing as an "illegal permit." This goes along with all the mentions of a permit in the "Death" section. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Extradition proceedings

It was claimed that it is "demonstrably false" that Zimbabwe planned to begin extradition proceedings. Nevertheless, dozens of reliable sources say otherwise.[4]. That they didn't eventually do it is a different matter entirely. -- GreenC 13:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Zimbabwe has started extradition proceedings and hopes the United States will cooperate, said Oppah Muchinguri. Muchinguri is the minister that was unable to get prosecutors to start legal proceedings, let alone extradition. That minister had no authority to speak for Zimbabwe (and obviously didn't). They are a poor source for a negative BLP claim and all the sources point to that minister. Poorly sourced, negative BLP claims are not allowed. If there is more than that single ministers statements, we can review but including material that is demonstrably false will have a high bar. --DHeyward (talk) 17:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
BBC source. Oppah Muchinguri, who is a high level Zimbabwae minister and politician, initially "called for Mr Palmer to be extradited and face prosecution". However after it was found Palmer broke no laws nothing was done. According to Muchinguri, "We approached the police and then the Prosecutor General, and it turned out that [Walter] Palmer came to Zimbabwe because all the papers were in order." It does not present Palmer in a negative light. It shows Zimbabwe reactions to Cecil's death. Leaving it out on BLP grounds is nonsensical. Palmer broke no laws and Muchinguri says as much indeed making Palmer look better and herself in the wrong. -- GreenC 18:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Leaving it out on BLP grounds appears required by policy WP:BLP. We do not list facts which do not end up being facts in material relating to living persons. Collect (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
"Facts that don't end up being facts"? Everything in the BBC article is factual. -- GreenC 19:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The facts are that a minister made a statement. That minister was unable to even convince prosecutors to file charges let alone extradition. It is a factual error that "Zimbabwe called for extradition" and is not something we can say in WP voice as fact. It was the desire of a single minister that was unable to even get a criminal indictment, let alone use that to start extradition proceedings. There is no record that Zimbabwe did anything of the sort. That is a factual error you are trying to state in WP's voice when it was rather a desire of a single individual. --DHeyward (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Where did the article say that Zimbabwe had called for extradition? I thought we were well past that in matching the article to the updated situation in RS. Samsara 21:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Anything that says Zimbabwe started extradition proceedings because of a crime is demonstrably false. That whole line of statements are false. Rather than drag palmer through the mud only to rinse him off at the end is pointless BLPGOSSIP in an article about Cecil the lion and even the Death of Cecil the Lion. Zimbabwe's president ate baby elephant at the time, too, but even though elephants are big game animals and have international protections, those types of "facts" are irrelevant to the article. Palmer's contribution is that he was the hunter who acted according to the law. Any superfluous details are simply not relevant. Negative details violate our BLP policy. He is not notable. Even notable subjects don't have unfounded charges written about them. --DHeyward (talk) 22:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Unfounded charges? He participated in an act for which two people are being prosecuted, and was slapped with a national hunting ban. As for notability - wow! I think just about every news-aware person around the globe now knows his name. He gets over 1.5 million Google hits. Samsara 22:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, "unfounded charges." He was cleared of wrongdoing. There is no source saying he has a 'national hunting ban' and he was specifically invited back to visit Zimbabwe as a tourist. Hunting is suspended nationwide according to reliable sources so the only invitations are for tourism. And no, he didn't participate in the acts that two people are being prosecuted for. That's why he is not being prosecuted - saying otherwise is exactly why these statements is a BLP violation. We have a BLP policy. Please read it, especially BLPCRIME, BLPGOSSIP, BLP1E. If you cannot separate Palmer from an illegal act, you shouldn't be editing the article. Palmer is not notable outside Cecil and stories that are outside of Cecil do not belong in the article especially stories that violate BLP policies. --DHeyward (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
He was not cleared. He was simply never charged. Where is your source that he was "specifically invited"? Hunting is *suspended* nationwide, which implies the possibility that the suspension could be lifted (that's what suspended means - again, check your dictionary!) Muchinguri-Kashiri was clear about this when she said, "We are now going to review how we issue hunting quotas". As for Palmer, we have, "Muchinguri Kashiri said Palmer was free to visit Zimbabwe as a tourist but not as a hunter. The implication was he would not be issued the permits a hunter needs." Your interpretation contradicts the sources. Samsara 23:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
For wikipedia, there is no difference between never charged with a crime and cleared of a crime. Everyone is innocent until convicted. Your arguing over split hairs. Wikipedia also doesn't do "implied". Where did you see the word "banned?" Muchinguri is not the best source for information regarding such things as they are often mistaken (remember when Muchinguri said he committed a crime in Zimbabwe? He didn't). My interpretation simply doesn't touch on hunting licenses. My interpretation is on what was actually said which is he is free to visit Zimbabwe as a tourist. I do not know if Zimbabwe does Bills of attainder and therefore it would be difficult to speculate on his future hunting. Besides, it's completely irrelevant to Cecil as to whether Palmer ever hunts again and including speculation on his hunter status in Zimbabwe is another Palmer COATRACK. See here [5]. I'm sure you can find the word "cleared." --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The legality/illegality of the hunt was a major part of Cecil's death story. Thus Cecil's killers history of illegal hunting (edit: the bear) is relevant to the story, regardless if the hunt (edit: Cecil) was subsequently found legal or not. This is not my opinion, the sources all reported it this way. -- GreenC 03:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Palmer was cleared of legal wrongdoing (google it, its the exact term used). He is no longer part of the "illegal hunt" aspect of the story and it's a BLP violation to continue to say he is. He has been cleared of wrongdoing[6]. Please stop saying that he is still part of any wrongdoing related to Cecil. It's a false BLP violation to link anything that Palmer did to an article on Cecil. Sorry but that's the heart of BLP policy. --DHeyward (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
"Please stop saying that he is still part of any wrongdoing related to Cecil.s". I was referring to the bear killing ("history of") not Cecil's killing. Edited to clarify. Anyway this conversation is pretty much pointless, we are headed to an RfC, just a constant repeat filling up the page wasting time. -- GreenC 04:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The bear killing is completely unrelated to Cecil and articles on Cecil or articles on the killing of Cecil. It's COATRACK to mention it. Biggest "guilt by association" violation of BLP policy we have. Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you stop? We have reliable sources placing the bear killing in the Cecil context. Samsara 04:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
No, we don't. It's all predicated on a pattern by Palmer. Once Palmer was cleared of wrongdoing (google it), that COATRACK evaporated. There is no wrongdoing by Palmer. Are you asserting that the bear is related to the lion? Certainly you aren't asserting that Palmer committed wrongdoing regarding Cecil because of a small fine 10 years ago regarding a different animal, on a different continent with different guide. There is no connection and reviewing the justification for including it months ago, it all evaporated when Zimbabwe cleared him. Here's a hint: imagine Palmer was not in Zimbabwe when anything illegal happened. Now, what relevance does the bear story have regarding Cecil? (Hint: the answer is nothing. It's a classic COATRACK.)--DHeyward (talk) 06:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
It's not a coatrack when the sources themselves made connections. The legality/illegality of the hunt was a major part of Cecil's death story and Cecil's killers history of illegal hunting the bear was relevant to the story, regardless if the Cecil hunt was subsequently found legal or not. It's part of the history of events. We report the history of events. Without that context of the bear killing, the media and public uproar makes less sense and is more difficult to understand. -- GreenC 14:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh please. You start down the new alleys do justify clear COATRACK BLP violations. The frenzy started earlier than anything about Palmer was known, let alone his previous hunts. It started before Palmer was even named as the hunter. Johnny Rodrigues (the only member of the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force - that is quoted as if the organization is notable) started the Cecil thing and named Palmer long after he started the "outrage." He's also known for the press release regarding "Jericho." Remember the false stories that Jericho was poached and that Jericho was Cecil's brother? That was Johnny Rodrigues. Palmer's identity was not known until well after the controversy started. Further, the legality of Cecil's hunt has nothing to do with Palmer or the bear. Palmer was cleared and the bear story becomes a massive UNDUE problem as well as a COATRACK problem if it is used as bludgeon to imply Palmer did anything wrong. --DHeyward (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
If you can actually substantiate any of the above Rodrigues claims from reliable sources with a clear relevance to Cecil, it may be good to include. Absent that, I suggest you keep it out of the discussion. I think GreenC makes a very solid case here for mentioning the bear hunt, and the same applies to fully explaining the permit and extradition/non-extradition situations. All of these are part of the well-documented timeline of events that RS provide us with. Samsara 18:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the usual way of deciding on an issue like this is to discern what reliable sources do -- and it's true that there's frequently a connection made. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Reliable sources made the connection after the minister falsely accused him of a crime asserted, falsely, that he was being extradited. These are the exact instances of BLP violations we avoid. See WP:AVOIDVICTIM When writing about a person noteworthy only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well sourced. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. This is of particular importance when dealing with living individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization. Palmer was cleared of wrongdoing and this article should not have unrelated negative information bludgeoning him. The bear hunt is not related to Cecil. Palmer wasn't notable prior to Cecil. Also, it's negative and contentious and poorly sourced. The WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE burden is on those wishing to add this material. --DHeyward (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Poorly sourced? It was reported by a raft of major, reliable news outlets - Guardian, Independent, ABC, NBC, Telegraph, Washington Times, etc. etc. [7]. Samsara 19:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
And read this [8]. Initially, Rodriques said the hunter was Spanish (strike 1) while proclaiming all the cubs would be killed (debunked immediately by experts saying Cecil was dead for a month and killing cubs would have already happened). That was after the outrage started and he had to issue another correction. Then he said Jericho was killed by poachers (strike 2). And as a self-described expert and fan of the "famous lion", he falsely stated that Jericho was Cecil's brother (strike 3). I don't think there is a single true statement in this source [9] (Rodrigues swears an evil spaniard will be exposed). So with all this contrvoersy raging about a Spaniard, how does Palmer killing a bear matter? --DHeyward (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
I find myself unable to share your hyperbole regarding the BBC article. Source says, Allegations that a Spaniard was behind the killing were being investigated, Johnny Rodrigues said., then, Two guides had been arrested and if it was confirmed that the hunter was a Spaniard, "we will expose him for what he is", he added. I see that the BBC writes IF it was confirmed. I think either they or Rodrigues are correctly filtering the information available at the time. The person being Spanish was not asserted, only reported as an allegation. Samsara 19:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
It shows the hysteria was in full gear before Palmer was mentioned. The argument that Palmer triggered it is BS. It was in full swing beforehand. You still haven't put together that one guy., Johnny Rodrigues, is the one behind all the stories? --DHeyward (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The answer is very simple. WP:OR. Samsara 21:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Umm no. If you are going to assert that Palmer was a catalyst for outrage when outrage was apparent long before he was named, you should expect to be slapped. The bear story is as irrelevant to the story as the unnamed Spanish hunter. --DHeyward (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that some editors took, and continue to take, any utterings from Zimbabwe politicians at face value. Zimbabwe has one of the most corrupt and dirty governments on Earth. So for instance, some nutty, uninformed, uneducated Zim pol states "we'll extradite this man", the media parrots it, it of course never takes place, and now, even though there was never any crime, the poor hunter's BLP gets dragged through the mud for no reason. XavierItzm (talk) 08:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It's enough now. The two of you have attacked Rodrigues and Muchinguri without sources to back you up. At some point, you're going to have to accept that Wikipedia does not reinvent the wheel, we simply rely on sources that are generally considered reliable. If you have an issue with that, your best bet is to go work for one of those papers or press agencies as an investigative journalist and see if you can substantiate the "truth" you claim to have knowledge of that unfortunately (for you) not everybody shares. WP:BLP applies to talk pages, and I think this is the point at which to start removing any unsubstantiated claims on the talk page as well. If you have sources, bring them, and we'll discuss. Hearsay shall no longer have a home here. Samsara 10:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
What are you babling about? There are plenty of sources. Muchinguri said there was a crime committed by Palmer which is false. Rodrigues initially implicated a Spanish hunter then Palmer and still insists Palmer broke the law. Rodrigues also stated that Jericho was a rival lion that will kill Cecil's cubs. He then announced that Jericho was Cecil's brother and also killed. Everything he has said has later been proven wrong.[10][11] --DHeyward (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
"Johnny Rodrigues, is the one behind all the stories" .. So why do you think Johnny Rodrigues made up these stories, what is his motivation and/or goal? -- GreenC 15:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
If you don't know this, you probably shouldn't be editing the article. Google is your friend. --DHeyward (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I looked and can't find anything. Why do you think Johnny Rodrigues made up these stories, what is his motivation and/or goal? -- GreenC 18:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
That's not germane to the problem of being a reliable. Neither of them are reliable. Stories sourced to them (i.e. stories about extradition of Palmer, stories about a spanish hunter, crimes by Palmer, jericho being a rival lion that will kill Cecil's cubs, jericho being cecil's brother, jericho being killed by poachers, etc, etc) have all turned out to be false and there are only two individuals that started these false narratives. Their motives are irrelevant but being wrong means they fail WP:RS and we shouldn't repeat their nonsense without attribution (and hopefully not at all since they are BLP violations). --DHeyward (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
It is germane, based on your comments you have a conspiracy theory these two intentionally spread false information motivated by their work in conservation. "two individuals that started these false narratives". Is there a source? You are sensitive about BLP but have no trouble accusing individuals, including a notable individual, of "starting false narratives". It seems unlikely they would make up stories so easily disproven, more likely they were giving the press the best information they had at the time. -- GreenC 22:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh please. The conspiracy is in your head. I only hve said their statements are flse. You seem to know more about them than I. The only thing relevant is that they are wrong so often as to not be reliable. Your assessment is not relevant as it changes nothing about the veracity of their statements. They are false narratives (i.e. stories about extradition of Palmer, stories about a spanish hunter, crimes by Palmer, jericho being a rival lion that will kill Cecil's cubs, jericho being cecil's brother, jericho being killed by poachers, etc, etc) and therefore they are unreliable. --DHeyward (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Quite the contrary - the notion that the minister was wrong seems to be in your head - others here are seeing that the information is accurate and consistent. You're just showing confusion about the difference between "intend to" and "do". Some news organisations unfortunately also overstated this, but I don't see how that warrants your attack on the integrity of living persons. Samsara 06:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The minister said palmer committed a crime and that they were seeking extradition for that crime. No sources say "intend to" or you have yet to provide them. Nor did direct quotes say "intend to." She stated it as fact and just makes her wrong and unreliable source for government statements. The only BLP violation is your insistence that Palmer be tied to illegal activity. The same is true for Rodriques who continues to falsely say Palmer acted illegally. Stop breaching BLP policy but putting in negative, poorly sourced information (Palmer was never charged with a crime, Zimbabwe didn't ask to extradite him, Jericho is not a rival lion, Jericho did not kill Cecil's cubs, Jericho is not cecil's brother and Jericho was not killed by poachers). They are simply false statements and are unreliable. Any article content that is derived from these two individuals needs to either attributed to them as opinion or omitted. --DHeyward (talk)

BLP Noticeboard

This article was reported to the BLP noticeboard. I have reviewed the article, and well, Palmer gets credit for killing Cecil, tons of refs and all reliable. The article is well written and adequately sourced. As to the specific edits, the editors here seem capable of resolving this dispute. Article seems ok, but I will go through it and review all the sources. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I erroneously said in an edit summary that the editor who had posted the tag hadn't gone to the talk page. I was incorrect and I apologize. Since this article was reported to the BLP noticeboard, I'll re-post though tag, though this article seems exceptionally well-cited. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I noted alas that the Zimbabwean official was one person - and the cite for multiple unnamed officials actually only lists the one who is already covered in the article. ("Oppah Muchinguri, the African nation's environment minister") Collect (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've archived a lot today, and I urge my fellow editors to help archive the large number of remaining links that face link rot. Within a year, some percentage of these links will be dead, and not all get archived by Wayback Machine bots. Additionally, some cites, like USA Today, can only be archived at WebCitation, manually. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tenebrae - I'm surprised we don't seem to have a bot for this. Samsara 00:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
It's incredibly difficult for reasons I won't get into here. Many have tried. More info at WP:Link rot. -- GreenC 00:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: FWIW, there is rumor that "webcitation.org has been about to cease its activities by financial reasons". There is mementoweb.org as another alternative. -- GreenC 00:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow. What a disaster that would be if WebCitation went dark. I pray this only means it will stop accepting new cites but will retain those already there, but that may only be wishful thinking on my part. Wow. Thank you for the head's up. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes. A search suggests it may be stale info, see here:
"The service is currently in financial trouble. According to the WebCite homepage as of February 2013, WebCite will stop accepting new submissions by the end of 2013, "unless we reach our fundraising goals to modernize and expand this service."
Presume they met their goal as it's 2015 and no new notice about financial trouble on the homepage. There is also a claim WebCite feeds its content to Internet Archive: "WebCite® feeds its content to digital preservation partners such as libraries and the Internet Archive (archive.org)." No idea how much or how to access it through Internet Archive. -- GreenC 00:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Clearly the WMF needs to set up servers of its own for this purpose. Samsara 00:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Here is the 2013 proposal for a sister project called "WebCite". I'm not sure what happened, I think webcitation.org may be receiving some money from WMF, and Internet Archive is crawling new Wikipedia pages and archiving external links found there (but no bot is doing the reverse, adding the IA links to the Wikipedia page). -- GreenC 00:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
[12] Samsara 01:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Initial confusion about Jericho's fate - noteworthy?

We don't currently report that Jericho was briefly believed dead and this information subsequently retracted, with some news outlets then reporting that another lion was killed instead. Should this be included? Samsara 19:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why not. It was part of the trigger-finger hysteria around Cecil's death, showing how the press and public were fed confirmation biases. A history would be incomplete without. -- GreenC 19:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
why would we include an event that didnt happen to something that is not the subject of this article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
It was reported in relation to whether or not Cecil's cubs would be killed (well, partly). Samsara 21:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
No, the head of an organization that only consists of him said in alternate fashion that a) jericho was a rival lion b) jericho would kill cecil's cubs d) jericho was Cecil's brother and e) jericho was killed by poachers. All those statments were made by the same person and press repeated them until the experts at Oxford said he was full of shiat. He's never been right. All his crap should be left out of the article. -DHeyward (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't think the "initial confusion" is noteworthy, but there is clear newspaper ongoing interest in Jericho and his or Cecil's cubs. Individual meals are reported.[13] Newspapers have separately reported "not blood brothers" and from the same pride. If from the same pride, they probably have the same father, and if different mothers, the different mothers would be related. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)\
Oxford has confirmed in many places that Cecil and Jericho are unrelated. They formed a coalition where they may not consider cubs to be outside the coalition but there is no evidence that Cecil and Jericho have a mother/pride or father in common. It is not unusual for unrelated male lions to form coalitions. Jericho and Cecil do no not share a mother or father in common. --DHeyward (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
U of Oxford has confirmed? Where? Can you point to a reliable source? I tried, moderately, and failed to find. Some have newspapers "said" they are related(cubs from same pride)/unrelated, without sign of really knowing, probably guesswork. I am not trying to argue, but think it is slightly interesting, but more-so if there were real evidence (known genealogies or DNA testing). If it is just tabloid journalist made up fact-filler, then it is not interesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Here [14]. From the guy that put tracking collars on them Dr. Andrew J. Loveridge, who helps run the research project in Hwange that's part of the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit in Oxford's Department of Zoology..."Cecil and Jericho are not brothers, but male lions frequently form coalitions with unrelated males in order to successfully hold territories." Cecil did have a brother that was killed years ago when they were staking out territory. It wasn't Jericho, though. All of the nonsense came from the "Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force" which seems to be a single person, Johnny Rodrigues. That person is not allowed in the park. --DHeyward (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I saw that, but was hoping for something better, something better than their facebook posts or a response to a journalist's call. I read the statement as meaning that they formed a coalition after meeting as adults. This does not mean that they had not previously known each other. Part of the curiosity goes to how far do the researchers track individuals and family groups. For reliable sourcing, I think that can be found here, http://www.wildcru.org/ (a unit of http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/department-zoology ?), and newspapers and npr.org are suitable for use has notability aka wider-interest indicators but less so as reliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Killing of Cecil the lion - original title, despite the pleas for the current title in the AFD, deletion is based on notability, not Title Policy. If at some point sufficient RS and content are included in the article to demonstrate the independent notability of Cecil, then this title discussion may be reconsidered--RIP Cecil, at least until the next RM Mike Cline (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


Cecil (lion) → Death of Cecil the lion – While Cecil may be notable enough for an article on his own, this article is not it. This article is clearly about his death, the effects, palmer etc. All of this content should be moved to a "death of" article, and if a "BLP" needs to be created that focuses on cecil as a whole, then that can be done. . Gaijin42 (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)--Relisted. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

it was a renegade move with no consensus discussion to support it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Despite claims of Cecil's notoriety, none ever materialized. A one person organization agendaneered the social media campaign which died a month or so after cecil. The death was a notable social campaign but the lion was not notable as evidenced by the articles devotion to facts unrelated to its life. --18:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)
    Are you allowed to use a loaded word like "agendaneered" here, without a permit!? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Per WP:NOTABILITY "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." It seems obvious to me that the death of Cecil is notable given the media coverage, and Cecil is notable by proxy since it was his death, and there is not enough meaningful sources outside the common intersection of those two topics to support separate articles. Therefore this page, regardless of title, is the appropriate place for noteworthy and reliably sourced material on either Cecil or his death. Rhoark (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Cecil may be indipendantly notable, but if so it is not due to his death. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. In any case, my point about this move is that there is a lot of information in this article clearly not about the lion itself, but about the event. Therefore the article should move to be about the event. If someone can find encyclopedic well sourced information about cecil, I don't think anyone would object to its inclusion. But if this article stays as a "BLP" then the information not about cecil itself should be removed. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Gaijin42: Can you just confirm that you've read clause 3 of BLP1E? If you did, can you explain how the events were not significant, or Palmer role not substantial or well-documented? Thanks - I just think the policies we cite should actually fit the case we're talking about. Samsara 20:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Palmer's role in the event is substantial. But this article (as named) is not about the event. Its about the lion. The amount we should talk about Palmer on an event (death of) article, is much greater than we should talk about palmer on a "cecil" article. In any case, I am not saying we can't have an article about cecil. as I have said multiple times the content we have now is appropriate for an event article. Therefore we should make this be an event article. If we do or do not want a separate cecil article is an entirely different question. If this remains a "blp" article, then the content which is inappropriate for a blp (tangental biographical details about people other than cecil. effects on conservation,criminal investigations, etc) should be removed. I would rather they be WP:PRESERVEed, so I support renaming this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking at the main Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Cecil the lion there was supposedly a source that asserted notability within the park, but no actual sources were provided that I could tell. I recall other sources quoting people in Zimbabwe saying they had never heard of the lion. -- GreenC 04:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, there were a number of "let's hear some local voices" type pieces published at that time. It's not surprising that the locals haven't heard of the lion, as they have little reason to visit the park. They encounter many of the same animals around their villages, many of them can't afford a ticket to the park, and they're still rather afraid of lions for the few times that one does go roaming, or because their grandparents can still remember when lions were a major threat to be heeded. Cecil is more likely to feature in a first world research paper and/or documentary. That he was popular with tourists, I'm willing to believe. For some time he and his pride seem to have inhabited a private concession (or the territory overlapped it), so at that time even fewer people would have been able to encounter him. I do remember reading a piece somewhere - prior to the breaking of the story of his death - about how unusual it is that two males who each have their own pride would occasionally join up and even allow their females to mate with the other guy. That's why Jericho won't kill the cubs. Obviously, none of this matters until I can find that source again, which may be never, given the Google fog. Samsara 17:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • support The main topic of the article is the death of a previously very little known lion. I have carefully read through the refs and TP (including archived TPs and refs that have now been removed) and it is clear that the lion was a few times cited in marketing brochures as one of the attractions in this one park where most visitors are foreigners. The lion was not famous by any stretch of the imagination and the only notorious thing about it is that Western social media and mainstream media made a mountain out of a perfectly legal molehill. The article should be entitled "Death of Cecil the Lion" or "Summer 2015 Cecil the Lion Media-driven Hysteria." XavierItzm (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it was "media-driven" - the media presented a fluff piece and social media turned went wild with social media vigilantism cause i can show how much i care about the environment by twitting vitriol from my 6th smart phone full of rare earth metals and toxins while I drive my SUV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment This article and its suggested move have some similarities with the article Marius (giraffe). Like Cecil, Marius was not really notable prior to his death, indicating the article is primarily about the death. This then indicates the method of death is probably an important factor to be considered in the title. It would be consistent I think to move Marius (giraffe) to Euthanasia of Marius the giraffe and Cecil (lion) to Killing of Cecil the lion.DrChrissy (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This is silly. It originates out of WP:BIO1E concerns, and not wanting to have an event article creep into a full biography of a non-notable person. The subject is not a person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The normal purpose and effect of such a change, from "X" to "Death/killing/murder of X", is to limit the scope of coverage of X of anything not directly related to the Death/killing/murder, even if supported by sources. This is desirable where X is a private individual person, and completing the biography of X's private life, family, friends, workplace amounts to an invasion of privacy of associates of X. This is why BLP1E and BIO1E exist. This proposal, like the similar but failed attempt with Marius the giraffe, would be to broaden privacy concerns to animals. That is just silly. If Cecil's family tree is elucidated, if a familial relationship with Jericho is discovered (they are not "blood brothers" [15], but were they cubs in the same pride?), this article is the place to cover it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
No, it's not. There's a chance that he's related to Aslan also, but we don't title articles on speculation. When the Aslan bloodline is supported and notability of the individual becomes separate from the event, we fork off a biography. Cecil doesn't have a notable biography beyond this single event. --DHeyward (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Sourceable genetics information on the relationship of Cecil to the new pride leader who did or did not protect Cecil's cubs would be most appropriately added to this article. Cecil the lion is now a notable subject and information directly related to Cecil does not require independent testing of notability, as it would on the higher threshold associated with living people.
The ongoing coverage is evidence of the late Cecil's posthumous notability. It is established, and does not need to be established for every aspect of Cecil. Your mention of Aslan is a red herring as Aslan is an eternal deity without family bloodlines, but discover of relationship between Cecil and Kimba or Simba would be very interesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • OPPOSE. It's not silly and I understand what the editors are noting above. Still and all, it's a needless imposition of rules when it's more useful and WP:TERSE to just leave the article here. Further, as OP admits, there is room to grow the article into greater coverage of Cecil's popularity in life in a way that isn't possible for other WP:BIO1E articles. Let's just leave it here rather than moving it back in four months after someone expands the section on his life. Along with an editor above, though, I agree Cecil the lion is a better treatment of the name, though. — LlywelynII 22:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit warring

Per the request at WP:RFPP, I have unprotected the article (or restore semi, rather). Please take this as a general warning that editors who resume edit warring are subject to being blocked, or having full-protection restored to the page. Any changes relevant to the content dispute should be supported by consensus. Thank you for your understanding — MusikAnimal talk 19:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Cecil_the_lion/Archive_4&oldid=1084072350"