Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion/Archive 1

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (Not looking for information about the death of the lion but information on the lion...) --2602:306:CE92:8F80:198D:E30B:EC51:ED45 (talk) 01:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... there was no consensus at the afd to move the article to Cecil (lion). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:44, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"one of Africa’s most famous lions and the star attraction at the Hwange national park."

• one of Africa’s most famous lions and the star attraction at the Hwange national park. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.201.136 (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Weapon used

Different articles are describing the weapon as a "bow and arrow" and a "crossbow." Most of the photos of the dentist show him using a compound bow. Perhaps we should use caution in the description until this is clarified. If this is the photo, it's a compound bow. Pkeets (talk) 04:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

the implication of the outrage

There is something important here [1] about the implications of the "outrage" over the killing of the lion but I am not quite sure how to sum it up or frame it: the "easy" outrage over the death of one animal, the comparisons to things that should be causing outrage, and the ludicrous peta statements bemoaning the death of an animal while calling for the death of a human. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

First, wikipedia articles are supposed to be balanced, and describe events as impartial as possible. Wikipedia articles are not a forums for individual discussions about personal points of views. Discussing personal opinions can be done on other platforms.Also killing of the animal in question was not just easy problem, you are oversimplifying here.

Second:one part of the outrage is that his death has shed light into series of problems to be dealt with.There are too many details in the event simply to dismiss the story as "easy outrage" in general. Take for example such detail that the hunter who killed him paid $50 000, but the presence of the lion at the park was the source of millions of dollars from tourists, according to Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force. This is on example. Other one that the animal was suffering for 40 hours.Etc.I am not for killing humans as revenge, just to let you know. But the general outrage is not an "easy one." It is a very complex reaction.PETA statement is only one facet of it. Why there there "should" be outrage about killing people (it causes outrage, rightly so!) And why there shouldn't be outrage because of an animal was killed and died a torturous death which wasn't supposed to happen.? Both causes for outrage are valid, if we go for the road of moral philosophy. Bialosz (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

did you read the source? and wikipedia articles are supposed to follow the sources, not give a false balance. This source rather than merely being a primary source reporting on the reactions is a secondary source analyzing the reactions themselves and placing them in context. It is the type of source that we should be using more of .-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

oops, the "easy outrage" is from [2] which i missed linking, but the two articles are of the vein, analyzing the outrage. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Dentist's name

Is there some reason why the dentist hasn't been named? From news reports, he's admitted to the killing and written an apology. Pkeets (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion is at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Killing_of_Cecil_the_lion. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I have not seen any cogent argument where naming the self-revealed killer is a breach of BLP. WWGB (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Cleared the way for move

It was requested that the redirecting article be deleted so this article could be moved to Cecil (lion). I granted the deletion for the following reasons:

1. Article was already redirecting here
2. AfD closure made no pronouncement on merit of move (contrary to what has been claimed)
3. Article currently covers Cecil's history in some detail, so goes beyond the incident

Talk page has been preserved for transparency.

Regards,

Samsara 08:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved to Cecil (lion)

WWGB (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

List of celebs

The list of celebrities who spoke about the killing seems undue. We don't need to mention every individual, just state that many did speak out. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 14:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Should we just delete the names and leave the references up, or are you suggesting we delete the references as well?DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree.A reference to an article talking about celebrities reaction would be enough instead of references.Bialosz (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Political reactions

I was wondering if the political reactions need the party and state in brackets (e.g. "Betty McCollum (D-Minnesota)")? There is also a reaction from the European parliament which might be notworthy: (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/27/killing-of-cecil-the-lion-prompts-call-for-eu-ban-on-importing-lion-trophies). --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how party and state are important, especially to non-American readers. WWGB (talk) 11:04, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Otherwise we would have to start stating party and constituency for our British politicians' comments - equally useless for Non-British readers!DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Tobias,of course the reaction of European Parliament is noteworthy,I included this.Bialosz (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

EU should be mentioned

Very US centric at the moment, there are EU news as well:

• http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/27/killing-of-cecil-the-lion-prompts-call-for-eu-ban-on-importing-lion-trophies

(yes, there is a factual error in the first sentence - it's been commented on but in the several hours that the article has been there, they apparently haven't fixed it)

Samsara 15:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there was incomplete information, (I am the author of this sentence)and I added the info and the link about EU. Thank you! As for the article itself, yes, it is still very fresh and a work in progress.It changed a lot in the last 24 hours. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, so, feel free to edit it :) Bialosz (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of content by IP user without explanation

An IP user has repeatedly removed notable, verifiable information that is cited to reliable sources, and added other material that is non-encyclopedic and non-notable ("He enjoyed strolls around the park with his pride.") Examples are here and here. I am taking this to the talk page before reverting again because I don't want to get too deep into an edit war. But unless this user can provide some sort of policy-based explanation for his edits, I believe the content he removed should be restored. — Hunter Kahn 17:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• As a follow-up, this edit clearly reveals a bias on his part and that his edits are purely vandalism. — Hunter Kahn 17:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This is pure vandalism, not in good faith.Bialosz (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Age

Many sources state age 13 at death. Is there a reason this is not in the article? Why is the birth year listed as "circa"? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Circa is used because he could be born September 2001 or May 2002 and still be 13 at time of death. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. How about my first question? Thank you.  !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph A. Spadaro (talk • contribs)

Let me see if I can add it to the infobox. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 16:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But it now says "age 12 or 13". Why is that? Did you put that in? Or another editor? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Linked video

There's no photo available in Wikipedia Commons, but there is a video of Cecil available at YouTube. I linked it, but another editor reverted the edit based on the opinion it might be "questionable." To avoid an edit war, are there other opinions on this? The video is properly licensed and in use by news media. Pkeets (talk) 04:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What you understand as "properly licensed?" Did you get a written permission from the author of the video to use it? News media buy rights to use images or videos, they use it with permission.Bialosz (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a policy for linking to files at Youtube. See WP:YOUTUBE for the requirements. I would say check in the history for the video, but it's probably way down the list now. Here's the file. Pkeets (talk) 21:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Dentist

Should the article say that Walter James Palmer was is still a (perfectly competent and commercially successful) dentist? Just think of the potential legal claims by ADA. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your post. What potential legal claims by the Dentist's Association? To answer your question: Is he, in fact. a dentist? Yes. Has this been reported in RS's? Yes. So, what's the problem, or the question, or the issue? His being a dentist has no relationship, proper, to the killing of the lion. But, it is certainly the sort of general biographical information that is appropriate for someone in an article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If the hunter's occupation is relevant, than his prior criminal record is most certainly relevant. The content in question is well sourced and relevant to the topic of Cecil The Lion's killing. 147.153.168.23 (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Relevant insofar as his practice has become the subject of attention that has been reported in the news. It's been reported that people have left things on his doorstep and placed placards nearby, and that the practice has been closed. That's probably not an exhaustive list. So those things could be mentioned. Samsara 20:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Bialosz suggests that this ought to be in a separate article (that isn't allowed). Martinevans123 (talk) 20:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

We describe him as a dentist because that's is primary occupation. To only describe him as a big-game hunter makes him source like he belongs on a NatGeo show. Either remove both term and call him an American or keep both. As for creating an article on him, out of the question. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'd be tempted to keep it, at least in the article body, if only as an indication of how wealthy American dentists must be. But that's probably a very poor reason, and possible even misleading. I see that User:WWGB has already decided it's irrelevant and has removed it from the lede. But the quote from Ingrid Newkirk, in the last paragraph, now looks like a bit of a non sequitur? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Martinevans123, what are you talking about? In which part I suggested what your write about? I consider your comment above trolling.I was referring to policies regarding living persons on wikipedia.147. 153. what is the problem? he killed the lion as a hunter, why should his past be relevant? H ei saslo a dentist and this was reported by media, also in relation to events which happened to his practice, etc. How this is past is directly connected to killing Cecil the lion? We are not trying to include biographical information of a living person, specially digging into someone's past on this occasion.The nature of media is emphemeral, the nature of wikipedia article is not.As I wrote already the biography of living persons policies on wikipedia are here for reason. What is the problem here? And Joseph A.Sparado expressed it clearly enough in his post.Bialosz (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about Walter James Palmer. Apparently he's a dentist, or used to be. You could take me to ANI and get me blocked, I guess. "Digging up the past"?? Dentistry is nothing to be ashamed, of you know! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Martinevans123 you are trolling. Bialosz (talk) 22:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm discussing the topic in a perfectly rational way. As well as actually trying improve the article. But by all means, raise your concerns at WP:RVAN if you see fit. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the discussion is not rational on your side. Alone saying what I don't say,and including trolling link is not an effort in improving an article, is simply trolling. No point in elaborating further.Bialosz (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that display of good faith. So what's to be done with that quote from Ingrid Newkirk? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think her quote should be here, among the reference links in the section dealing with negative backlash, yes.

As for digging up comment and dentistry-digging up the past: we don't talk on this talk page about dentistry to be ashamed of, but about listing his other details about personal life from the past. Huge difference.Bialosz (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Different version of event by the professional hunter

The professional hunter, Theo Bronkhurst, has given a very different version of the event. In the article Hunter wanted to kill an elephant after shooting Cecil the lion he makes the following points:

• Cecil was wounded with an arrow about 10 pm on 1 July
• He was killed after 9 am the next morning, much less than 40 hours
• Palmer finished Cecil with another arrow, not a bullet
• The GPS collar was removed and hung in a tree
• Despite knowing that he had killed a protected animal, Palmer subsequently inquired about killing a large elephant.

I realise all of this is from a primary source, but it does suggest that much of the article is currently incorrect. WWGB (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Since it's from a primary source, via a party with obvious interests in telling a story that would suit his interests, I think we can safely ignore it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we remove references to a "rifle." Palmer's compound bow is in the picture posed with the dead lion. Pkeets (talk) 06:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest, instead, that we monitor how reliable sources cover the circumstances of the lion's death as time goes by, and after raw emotions settle down. It is entirely possible that the first shot was by arrow but the fatal shot by firearm, and that the dentist still posed with his compound bow. He was, after all, convicted in 2008 of lying about the circumstances of a 2006 bear kill. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: I suggest we remove anything contradictory per BLPCRIME and presumption of innocence. We don't "safely ignore" innocence here. THis is WP, not Rolling Stone magazine. --DHeyward (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Having looked at the source, this appears to be a secondary source (The Sydney Morning Herald) reporting another secondary source (The Telegraph). I can see the interviewee would have had a COI in giving his story, but the reporting of his account is presumably accurate.DrChrissy ^(talk) 11:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Shot to death"?

This doesn't sound like a normal description of what actually happened, but more like some kind of hail of bullets. The lion was eventually killed by a single shot from a rifle? It's not even clear from the article that Palmer fired the final shot. His "shot with an arrow" certainly did not kill the animal. Is a better phrase available? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"Shot and killed"? StAnselm (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Palmer, a dentist, gave the lion a shot to stop the pain from a 40-hour cavity". WWGB (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Will there be any plaque? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The guide has been quoted as saying that Palmer killed the lion with another arrow shot. Given the variation in descriptions of how this happened, we should likely be cautious in making statements. Pkeets (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Past legal violation

I don't think there is a need for digging up media stories from hunter's personal life and enshrine them in wikipedia article.This relates to a living person, and also this is not about killing the lion.Media reported well in many cases, but some went into frenzy. I don't think we need to include any this kind of snippets of news here, specially if is not relevant to the killing the lion situation. Nor we need to quote that he was referred as "most the most man in America"Bialosz (talk) 19:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Any such info should be removed immediately as BLP violations. Moreover, this article is about Cecil, not the dentist EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:14, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

It's hardly "digging up media stories" when it has been reported repeatedly by BBC News. But BLP policy, if it is sufficiently clear on such issues should, of course, still prevail. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:COATRACKing to insert BLP materials is some of the sleaziest type of WP:RGW behavior. Completely inappropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I feel physically sick already. He's not getting that dental probe in my mouth. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The hunter's past history is more than relevant to the article. However, if this article is not the best place for such information, then it should be included in an article in which the hunter himself is the subject. 147.153.168.23 (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No, hunter's past history is not relevant to the article, only what is relating to killing the lion, nor should there be a separated wikipedia article on him.Wikipedia BLP policy is important, is here for a reason, and should be respected. Bialosz (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

If this article is really just about the lion, I suspect the word "dentist" need not appear. Martinevans123 (talk) (see below)

How the comment about word usage (dentist) is relevant to the discussion on BLP policies here?Bialosz (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The sexual harassment issue is irrelevant. Being caught lying about the bear seems relevant; it's related behavior involving his relationship with big-game hunting and the law, and needs to be mentioned for context and perspective. If we suggest the Cecil incident occurred in a behavioral vacuum, as a one-off thing, we're misleading people.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There's a lot of context here. Not least the economic situation in Zimbabwe and the relative affluence of American dentists. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia article is not an opinion piece about a living person's behavioral patterns, or details from the past not relevant to an event described.And living persons still have legal rights.Bialosz (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Dead lions don't really have many rights, do they? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Nope. But what does that have to do with Wikipedia's policy about content regarding living people? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing. But it might explain the motivation of the public, and even some editors. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I can tell you that that bad-faith assertion certainly does not apply to me. Without context and perspective, raw facts often mislead people. That's hardly a revelatory statement original with me. And the idea that context and perspective translates to "opinion" is remarkable — a fuller understanding is just the opposite of "opinion." I might well have suggested there are right-wingers in favor of trophy hunting here, who are trying to keep fuller perspective away, but I'm not doing that, so I'd hope editors don't ascribe the opposite motivation to others with whom they disagree. --Tenebrae (talk)

WP:NPOV Political Reactions

Only reactions which are directly concerned with the subject of the article are notable. The Rubio section concerns Planned Parenthood and not directly the Cecil The Lion killing. This is not the place for political debate and only reactions which directly relate to Ceceil's killing should be included. 147.153.168.23 (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree Cornellier (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree.And why to quote tweet by Mark Rubio, there are plenty tweets also done by high profile people, quoting tweets is not a good practice for expanding this article. I suggest removing the section about Mark Rubio planned parenthood, as he used the death of the lion only as a tool for making his argument about Planed Parenthood stronger.Bialosz (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually per the sources outlined in Talk:Cecil_(lion)#the_implication_of_the_outrage the slushing of the the outrage throughout all spaces of public life is one of the few measurements of actual import of the incident. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree, and the piece already gives, with cite, the fact that politicians have expressed outrage. There's no need to additionally start quoting specific politicians' self-serving, partisan tweets. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"expressed outrage" is not what the analysis in the articles listed above says at all. There are multiple complicated and much more interesting things going on than the outrage "He killed a 13 year old animal that in the wild lives from 10-15 years! hang him!!!!" . There are multiple people from multiple vectors stating "Holy shit you people are all bent out of shape over the death of one animal? Where is your outrage about things that REALLY matter?" There are people attempting to jump on the publicity band wagon. There are people saying "How in the fuck did this one fluff story become the 'Summer of the Shark' story?" we dont touch on any of the actually interesting points at all. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The Rubio comment clearly violates WP:COATRACK and is clearly attempting to stray from the topic of the article. 147.153.168.23 (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment if you want discussion on particular statements, please provide diffs.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Sheesh! I didn't even know Cecil could swim. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The comments themselves are out of scope - the analysis that people are making comparisons of the "outrage" that people are expressing about this one animal's death compared to the lack of outrage about things that really matter is clearly in scope placing this event in the greater context of how the world perceives it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Great to know "how the world perceives it", Red Pen. What's your source for that? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

RE: "things that really matter" is a matter of opinion. Some would say animal conservation efforts are essential to maintaining a habitable biosphere, and the killing not just of a lion but of a poached, protected member of an endangered species matters. Yes, humans are murdered every day. Yes, there is war and famine. But to similarly suggest that, say, a shooting spree in Aurora, Colorado, isn't a big deal compared to a tsunami that killed tens of thousands misses the point. By any objective standard, Cecil's death has become major global news. You or I or this editor or that editor might not think it important, but our opinion doesn't matter. And just because it's not a tsunami doesn't mean it's not an event that warrants encyclopedic coverage. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And I will posit that the opinions that place the death of a single lion who was older than the average lifespan of lions as mattering more than, say the Death of Sandra Bland as representative of how much Black Lives Matter are, to put it bluntly, ridiculously inappropriate. But yes, opinions will vary.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia constructing a league table of "deaths that matter"? Even more difficult than "deaths that are unusual", I would have thought. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2015

The number of signatures on the Cecil petition is over 900,000 as of this morning. Please update this paragraph:

Reaction Cecil's death created an outrage among animal conservationists, prompted responses from politicians[23] and many other people.[24] A number of celebrities publicly condemned Cecil's killing.[25][26][27][28][29][30] Palmer received a flood of hate messages.[31]

The death of Cecil sparked a discussion among conservation organisations about a proposal for bills banning imports of lion trophies to the US and European Union[32][33] as well as discussions about ethics and the business of big-game hunting, including calling African countries to ban bow hunting, lion baiting, and hunting from the hunting blinds.[34][35][36] Global media and social media reaction has resulted in more than 400,000 people signing online petition "Justice for Cecil", which calls on Zimbabwe's government to stop issuing hunting permits for endangered animals.[17]

NOTE: You can see the current number of signatures for proof by searching for Cecil the lion petition, a page which you guys are blocking so I can't give the exact address.

thanks. 75.69.251.143 (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

A petition can't be its own source. It needs to be covered by secondary sources, then we can say what those say about it, if they say something significant. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The current source is BBC News which seems entirely adequate. Should another WP:RS provide a higher running total, before the BBC is updated, that could be added in its place. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

My bad. Saw a [17] leading nowhere, assumed it was the thing they said they couldn't link. And thought that 400,000 was 900,000. BBC's definitely adequate. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The more significant threshold, of 100,000 seems to have been easily passed. Apparently this means that it "goes to the White House". This sounds quite important. Or maybe it's just "uncontollable public hysteria that should have no place in a serious encylopedia"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC) ... or is this a different one??

Justin Bieber's article mentions the time the White House didn't deport him. I had to cite Gawker, because even White House petitions are blacklisted. Maybe this one will have as big an impact. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If the threshold for action is 100,000 and this one has attracted four times that many, this might well be significant in itself. But mention in a WP:RS is still required. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Two points: (1) the threshold is for a reply from the White House, not action and (2) it's not clear which petition is being referred to. There's a change dot org petition with over 680k signatures, a thepetitionsite petition with over 922k signatures mentioned on wrcbtv.com, and the White House petition with over 179k signatures. It seems clear, though, that the BBC is not referring to the White House one, though CNN does. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I did wonder. Are they all equally notable? How does one decide? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

They're all equally insignificant, as far as potentially making the White House act. It was clear in the Bieber one about leaving legal matters to the judiciaries. I guess the one that gets the most press is the most notable, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The White House petition with 100,000 threshold is already mentioned in the article in the context of extradition (with a reference from a secondary source). The White House already responded that they will review it (again, they only needs to respond, but they don't need to actually do anything about it). Z22 (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think that should stay. What about the other two? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I could not find much secondary sources on the change dot org petition. In fact, the change dot org site has a dozen of competing petitions regarding Cecil. I'm going to say that without secondary sources, it should not get included. However the petition to the President of Zimbabwe to stop issuing more permits was mentioned in BBC source. At that time the count was more than 400,000. The more recent news source referring to the same petition said that count was close to 900,000 (here). I guess we can use this and update the number to "close to 900,000" which is closer to reality. Z22 (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

After looking a tad deeper, the BBC must be referring to the petition on ThePetitionSite. It's really annoying that I can't link to these sites because they're blacklisted... It's the only one of the three that calls on Zimbabwe's government to stop issuing hunting permits for endangered animals (quote from BBC article). So the IP editor 75.69.251.143 is correct that the numbers are currently over 900k. The question becomes: do we just update the numbers based on the petition itself, or do we wait until it's mentioned by other sources? I'm leaning toward the former. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we should update the number by itself without a secondary source. Otherwise, it will get closer to original research. I already found another secondary source for the same petition that said "close to 900,000" (here). So we can use that count which is closer to the real number. Z22 (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Z22. Want to do the honors? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Done. Z22 (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Good outcome. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Marking request as answered. Thanks all. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies for potentially messing this up - I hadn't realised semi-protection could be applied to a thread. I thought they were only for entire articles.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries. The edit request just took a long time and a lot of discussion to fulfill. Still just a regular edit request for a protected article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

At least you didn't have to suffer my lame humour in this thread...? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Grammar issues

The grammar in the "Aftermath"..."Criminal investigations" section is really horrible (to the point where it is difficult to understand what the author intended to say). I was going to fix it but this article is "semi-protected" so I cannot.24.121.64.251 (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to put your copy edit here. I'm sure someone will apply your edit into the article. Z22 (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect date

In the "Criminal investigations" section, the date 30 June should be 30 July. 78.147.163.113 (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood WP:COATRACK

There should be absolutely no mention of Planned Parenthood or abortion whatsoever in this article. This article is about Cecil the Lion, not about furthering your personal political agenda. Any mention of Planned Parenthood and/or abortion is in clear violation of WP:COATRACK. 147.153.168.23 (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It's part of the aftermath and response to the killing. It's ridiculous but notable. It's not even in the article anymore... so what's the gripe? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I say put it back in so we can ridicule it properly. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Now now Martin - think about that edit you made a while earlier calling your sense of humour into question...  ;-) DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, fine! See you at WP:ANI, so-called animal behaviour doctor expert!!. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarence is keeping his crossed-eyes on you! Tread carefully!DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

PETA statement

I believe the direct quote of the PETA statement is inflammatory and borders on incitement to commit a violent act against the named hunter. In the interests of responsible reporting, I would strongly recommend that we remove the direct quote and put a toned-down paraphrase in its place. Regardless of what some editors may think of this guy, we should not have text that could be construed as an incitement to commit violence or otherwise take a retaliatory act. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree. The "hanged" part is over the top. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I aqgree too.Or just move the source link to the part about negative reactions, do we really need this phrase at all?...Bialosz (talk) 02:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Either way, but I am not comfortable with the idea that Wikipedia is repeating the PETA statement suggesting the hunter deserves to be killed. That's dangerously close to the legal definition of incitement; common sense and good editorial judgment suggest that the direct quote be removed. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree! Bialosz (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the explicit reference to "hanged" as incitement/threat to engage in violence. WWGB (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!Bialosz (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree quite strongly that nothing that even hints at incitement to violence belongs in this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The PETA spokesperson said that he should be "charged ... and hanged" (emphasis mine). Perhaps it could be seen as their extending their support to a degenerate regime, but incitement to violence? Not so much; we all know that violence which is legally sanctioned is a-OK. Alakzi (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and as PETA often does in its statements regarding "guilty" humans, it fails to cite the laws under which the persons (please note the plural) factually responsible (please note that I did not write criminally responsible) for killing the lion are to be charged and executed. In the United States, capital punishment is available in about three quarters of the 50 states, but only for the intentional killing of another human being. To the best of knowledge, there is no death penalty for any crimes in Canada or the European Union, and Zimbabwe has not legally executed a convicted criminal since 2005. So, it is unclear under what body of laws that PETA wants identified parties to be charged and hanged (their words). To me as a lawyer, it's also unclear whether a crime has been committed or not under the laws of Zimbabwe. The American hunter claims that the two Zimbabwean guides/trackers obtained a permit, and it's possible we have not heard the last of the "permit" issue. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, we don't really know much about the hunting permits, this hasn't been explained in court, the situation may change.In the past, like centuries ago in some countries killing specific animals, like for. ex.deers which belonged to a king, was punishable by death, but today I doubt hat there is any jurisdiction which allows that.Poaching, hunting illegally is punishable in Zimbabwe, but it is 10 years or so in prison.So, why to call for hanging? Lets face it, it is a very bad statement.I don't think it deserves to be quoted on WP page.Bialosz (talk) 21:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree; I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in their statement. Sarcasm does not transmit well over the internet. Alakzi (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

True dat. Try <sarcasm> and </sarcasm>. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the <sarcasm>drill</sarcasm>. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The bit about the cubs doesn't belong in Death.

That section is about Cecil's death only, not death in general. Rodrigues says the cubs will be killed, because of Cecil's death. That is clearly a reaction. So it goes in Reaction. Until today, I would've sworn this was a simple concept.

Or is there something I'm missing here? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it is fine to be in death section. The acts of infanticides in the lion populations are direct result of the death of a given male who is the father. this information belongs together with information about the lion's death, as killing of his offspring is the direct result of death of this lion.It is is more clear and logical and better for the flow of the article than putting this into the section about psychological reactions of humans.Bialosz (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Everything in the reaction section is a direct result of the death of this lion. That's why this fits. Everything in the death section is the direct buildup to the central event. Something that happens after doesn't make sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Maybe just the word "believes" is not the best one in situation when Mr. Rodriguez is stating a fact, a natural consequence,a situation which appears in nature. In the source is "said." "Believes" is kind of ambiguous.Bialosz (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't like that, either. It's better than yesterday, though, when people added their own "most likely" qualifier. So I let it slide. I guess it's human nature to want to hope for a happy ending for fuzzy wittle kitties, but Wikipedia's not supposed to have feelings. If Johnny says the cubs will die, we should say what Johnny says, or at least not say Johnny says what he doesn't. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

As you said, it was tricky part to decide where it belongs, etc.And I agree, we need to keep articles encyclopedic, even if the subject may be very emotionally charged. I think today the section which was added for it is a very good idea, as this particular info didn't really belonged to Death section (your point taken!)and Reaction section wasn't too good either (in my opinion).Bialosz (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I think "Aftermath" is the most logical place to include it. Jonathunder (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Aftermath" and "Reaction" mean the same thing to me, so it's a bit weird to see them both. But yeah, as long as it's on its side of the time-space continuum, it's alright. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

not notable. 12 year old wild lions are rare. It wouldn't surprise me if the preserve "sold" Cecil. They can't continue a line of genetics with inbreeding. What's more relevant is how many Cecil generations there are on the preserve. --DHeyward (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Contradictory information: Honest not bailed out at all!

Right now, the article reads that farmer Honest Ndlovu has been bailed out: "Both men were granted bail at US$1,000 each and have been ordered to appear back in court on 5 August." and it cites this [ BBC article as support]. Currently citation 17. Guys, this is false. The linked BBC article clearly states that Honest has not been bailed out, because there is need to at this point. So the citation does not support the text.

Furthermore, today the Washington Post reports: "Landowner Honest Trymore Ndlovu has also been named by the country's parks service as being complicit in Cecil's slaughter, but his lawyer told the AP that Ndlovu has not been charged and was released." So this is in agreement to the earlier BBC report.

Now I am aware that there might be other media articles that say Honest has been charged and bailed out, but does this mean that the BBC and the Washington Post are incorrect? How is such contradictory info to be presented? XavierItzm (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

CNN, Associated Press, NY Daily News, and Telegraph all say he was released on bail. The WaPo article you link refers to the AP as the source of that statement, specifically linking to this. In that AP report, you can see at 12:20 P.M. that it's been corrected. To quote, "This item has been corrected to show that only the professional hunter has been charged and granted bail, not the farm owner." Given that, and the other RS saying he's been released, I say we keep the article as is. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but as of right now, the article reads: "Both men were granted bail at US$1,000 each and have been ordered to appear back in court on 5 August." and cites as evidence http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33699346, which does not at all in any way support Honest having being bailed out. Currently citation 17. Guys, this citation does not support the text it purports to support. It is a false citation. XavierItzm (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Update to whichever reliable source that is more up to date. Also it appears the information is overlapped with the "criminal investigations" section. We may want to merge them somehow. Not sure whether the merged info should be under Aftermath or under Death section. Thoughts from other editors? Z22 (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

OK I updated the text to show what the citation from the BBC actually reads. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33699346. People are welcome to use a different citation if they don't like the text, of course, although you still have the Washington's Post article of the 31st of July reporting the same as the BBC, i.e., Honest, the farmer, has not at all been charged. XavierItzm (talk) 06:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Merchandise

Goldgenie released a 24k gold edition of the HTC One M9 Android smartphone featuring an engraving of Cecil the Lion. The Verge criticised the launch saying "avoid this golden HTC One".

References

Should we have this section because people keep on reverting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iady391 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• No, just because people keep on trying to add it in is not a reason in itself. I think this is very trivial and ephemeral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StAnselm (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing suggests the product, or the ensuing discussion, is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWGB (talk • contribs) 12:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• No It reads like advertising and the Verge is possibly only notable in the US.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Probably not. Agree with DrChrissy, am really not convinced. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Headless skeleton?

There are pictures out there of what is apparently the carcass. It looks to be partially eaten, not a skeleton. Pkeets (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "torso" would be a better choice of word. 92.26.164.193 (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a torso if it has limbs. Corpse, carcass, body...all good. Source goes with "skeleton", though. Best to not doubt it without another source. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the source states "it was nothing more than a headless skeleton – picked clean by hyenas and vultures". WWGB (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I understand normally the head and pelt are the trophy. The land-owner gets the meat which they consume or sell. Don't know exactly what they did here or how lions are dressed and butchered. --DHeyward (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

"Gone are the days when we refer to animals as IT"

In edit summary. When did those days pass by? BTW, "Cecil" is what they called it. It wasn't domesticated or come when it was called or have much use for an anthropomorphic title created by western researchers in honor of of their Alma Mater's famous African imperialist. The days that are gone are of "naming" things in Africa after imperialists. "Rhodesia" is "Zimbabwe" because they threw off those pesky names. Really, they should have called it 24601. Or 8675309. --DHeyward (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Lions are people too, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a forum. Sources also use he/him to refer to Cecil. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 15:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Cecil almost certainly did have a number, however, using "Cecil" is consistent with how we have referred to him elsewhere within the article.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I find quite amusing that your edit summary for replacing "he" with "Cecil" is because "he" could refer to "Cecil Rhodes." Apparently, "Cecil" could not? lol. I replaced "Cecil" with "it" only because there is no longer any ambiguity as "it" would never be used to refer to a person. --20:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I was joking that it could refer to a human! Using "it" in a new paragraph does not read well at all.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Does that include wikipedia editors, I wonder? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes IT does.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)