Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion/Archive 5

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

6 Effect on conservation -- neutrality

I am appalled that anyone would seriously bring up that old, discredited line that trophy hunting is somehow good for communities. In the first place, hunting fees have a long history of making their way into government officials' bank accounts rather than being used for the good of the community. Secondly, hunters are not motivated by a desire to help the people in the countries in which these animals are located, they are there to kill a living creature -- their only motivation is death and the subsequent mounting of a dead animal's head or skin on a wall. Thirdly, there are existing programs to relocate animals where too many exist plus there are projects in place with more being developed to supply birth control and sterilization.

Although I am a professional copy editor which is the way I give back to Wikipedia, I am willing to collect information and work on this. I also think this section could greatly benefit from anyone with the required expertise to contribute a different viewpoint. Thank you. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Rissa. I was getting dismayed that no editors were commenting on the tag, and I'm glad to see someone offering to work on that section. I've worked a lot on the arrest and trial part of the story and am a little burned out on the article, so it's terrific to see an editor pitch in. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The label should be removed. The text is perfectly neutral and valid. I am appalled that the label was applied to this perfectly well-written paragraph. XavierItzm (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Remove the tag? No, the whole section has to go - it may be perfectly well-written, but it's a classic example of WP:COATRACK. It doesn't mention Cecil at all. StAnselm (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Now that I think about it, StAnselm is correct — that section doesn't mention Cecil and is not directly related to the subject of the article. If someone wants to read about trophy hunting or conservation efforts, there are Wikipedia articles for that. I agree — that section really is tangential here. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Remove the section. It's something someone put there to talk about a topic they wanted people to see in relation with the killing, but there is no direct relationships. In other words, I agree with the two opinions above. LjL (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
(ec) Apparently, this discussion is being construed as license to delete large parts of the article wholesale. However, the consequences of removing Cecil from the pride were discussed in RS without requiring input from Rodrigues (DHeyward's raised issue) and this article should not be without an appropriate mention of it, at the very least an appropriate wikilink to some other WP article where this is discussed (if it isn't yet, create it). Plenty of research on this subject is available. Samsara 23:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
This discussion is about the "conservation" section, not the "pride" section. I've re-removed the former as WP:COATRACK; the latter should probably stay (weak opinion), but the former should definitely go (strong opinion). LjL (talk) 23:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I remain unconvinced. The conservation section talks about comments made by the Namibian minister for environment and tourism in relation to changes announced by Delta Airlines in direct response to the Cecil case. You can't throw out the entire section because there are parts you don't like. Do it properly or leave it alone. Samsara 23:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Considering that Namibia is not Zimbabwe, and that the entire extent of the quotation given by the source is "This will be the end of conservation in Namibia" (talk about providing context?), it seems lackluster. If the specific Namibian minister's remark can be put into context and is deemed important enough (though many people have said many things), it can be easily mentioned as a single sentence inside the "Overseas reactions" section, without needing a whole section basically dedicated to advancing the idea that hunting is good for conservation. LjL (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Have you not figured this out yet? Cecil dies, international outcry, Delta suspends transport, Namibia is affected and speaks out. All direct impact of Cecil's death. Without the outcry over this particular animal, none of this would have happened, and all of it is potentially huge in its implication. An entire country the size of Namibia unable to fund its conservation efforts? Yup, that's huge. Whether it later turns out to be true or not is entirely irrelevant - if they are making relevant comments that garner international news coverage that connects it to the earlier event, you have relevance. Samsara 00:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay then as I said, put it (as in, the Namibian statement) in the international reactions section, without having a whole section with references from here and there that solely describe how-oh-incredibly-useful hunting is for conservation efforts, which is quite arguable and tangential. LjL (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
How is that burden on me? You're the one who erred in removing the material. Samsara 00:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I removed a section that was, on the whole, POV and tangential. This talk page shows there was wide disapproval of this section. There was a single part in it that may be of relevance in another section. I removed it and I stand by it. This is how it works on Wikipedia, history is preserved for a reason, either of us can take the small part that may have some merit and add it back. I am willing to add it back myself, but am not willing to accept allegations of having "screwed up". (If anything, whoever wrote that section "screwed up", minus possibly the Namibian statement unless that was an oversight!) LjL (talk) 00:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
You did. You screwed up and wanted to co-opt me into fixing it for you. At least stand by your edits. Samsara 00:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah whatever. LjL (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Both conservation and the bogus effect on the cubs that never happened need to go. They are unrelated to to the killing. I deleted both of them but apparently which ox is gored is mattering to some editors. Both sections are speculative and not directly related. Sourcing anything to Johnny Rodrigues should be viewed with extreme caution (he's said the cubs would be killed by Jericho, then said Jericho was Cecil's brother, then said Jericho was killed too). The experts said the fear of the cubs death was resolved by the time Cecil's death received widespread attention and was not an issue by the time the lion was named as Cecil. --DHeyward (talk) 06:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Stop speculating and bad-mouthing living persons, stick to reliable sources and all will be well. Infanticide in lions is well documented. You can pretend it doesn't exist, but it would just reveal a lack of understanding of this subject on your part. Samsara 06:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
      • No one denies lion infanticide. It just didn't happen here and by the time the news came out it wasn't a concern. The experts familiar with the pride knew that and said so. The guy who spread all the untruths regarding Jericho is not reliable. The cubs were alive 30 days after Cecil was killed and the researchers know that infanticide would have occurred long before that if it was going to happen. This isn't a generic lion behavior article and it's why we don't have the "Zimbabwe lions eat people" section. Should we speculate on how many people Cecil may have killed had he survived because lions are known to kill people? --DHeyward (talk) 08:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
        • You seem to have difficulty with the idea of sticking to reliable sources. Most of what you write above (e.g. "would have occurred long before that if it was going to happen") is plain original research. You also need to get past your vendetta against Rodrigues. His comments were cited by reliable sources, that's as good or bad as it's going to get. Samsara 14:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
          • Please don't scare people away from the very valid activity of questioning the reliability of sources based on the concept that "bad-mouthing living persons" wouldn't be acceptable, which is what transpires by your (inappropriate) linking of WP:BLP. This is a talk page, not a biography of a living person. LjL (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
            • Please re-read the policy document. Quote: " This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.". Please act accordingly. Thank you. Samsara 14:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I think by dint of the fact that Rodrigues is head of the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force that he is a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. One's person's opinion about him may or may not be valid, but the fact remains that as head of a national organization involved in the issue he is a valid source. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: a discussion has been started on the RSN about the appropriateness of stopping a WP:RS discussion based on WP:BLP of the source. LjL (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the "Consequences for the Pride" section should be removed from this article. This information regarding lion behavior is listed on the lion article. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I think effects on Cecil's specific pride may be mentioned; however, as you can see above, there is a bit of disagreement about whether those are sourced properly. I'll add to what's already being said (mainly about internal inconsistencies of Rodrigues as a source) that per WP:NOTRELIABLE, having a very vested interest in Zimbabwe animal conservation (he's "head of the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force"), may have an apparent conflict of interest, invalidating him as a source. LjL (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
He is not used as a primary source here - the actual sources we're using are the RS that cite him. Our "problem" is that he has been quoted extensively in the reporting, and he therefore cannot easily be disentangled from that reporting, no matter what originally derived opinions we may have of him. Samsara 15:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
This is not correct. He's often quoted in breaking news mainly because he releases the statements (i.e. Cecil has been killed by a Spanish hunter was breaking news released by him; "Jericho was Cecil's brother and has been poached" was released by him.) Per WP:RSBREAKING, those are all primary sources and when smoke cleared and Oxford and other sources were consulted, we find no basis for the claims. To wit, the pride consequences paragraph starts by postulating what happens when a rival lion kills the dominant male and takes over. But that whole premise was removed when when Jericho was revealed to be in alliance, not a rival. --DHeyward (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Tenebrae The "Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force" consists of a single individual: Johnny Rodrigues and the organization is unaffiliated with Zimbabwe. The government doesn't allow him in the park and he lives hundreds of miles away. He's quoted as breaking news and the details are corrected later. To wit, he broke the story of a hunter that killed Cecil. the poor spaniard he identified, however was corrected to Palmer. The section we have on "consequences of the oride" starts out with a synthesis of lion behavior when a pride is taken other by a new dominant male. Rodriques stated that the "rival lion" Jericho would kill the cubs. That didn't happen here, though because the whole synthesis of "rival lion" is incorrect. Oxford corrected it and said Jericho and Cecil were cooperative. Rodrigues then said Jericho, Cecil's brother, was poached. Oxford corrected it and stated no, the were cooperative but not brothers and no, Jericho had not been poached. Once we move beyond the breaking news, primary sources it's easy to see that these pieces are not appropriate. --DHeyward (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
DHeyward I do apologize for speaking too soon; I was jumping in and out of Wikipedia today while on deadline with other things, and I should not have commented without taking the time to do a background check. You're absolutely correct that the ZCTF is a private organization and not, as I mistakenly assumed, a government agency. I do see now the group had to apologize for an erroneous statement [1], which in an of itself is not uncommon — many organizations and even government agencies have to issue retractions now and again. But I should have checked more carefully before writing what I did, and I have, indeed, retracted that statement. Whether Rodrigues is credible or not is up to editors to decide via consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@Tenebrae: thanks for teh follow up. No worries. I don't know if I've been careful enough with descriptions and wording. Johnny Rodrigues should not be described as "credible" or "not credible." Rather he should be framed within our definition of reliable sources. He is quoted in breaking news. Per WP:RSBREAKING, those are primary sources regardless of whether the news agency is CNN or Time or whatever. What we find is that Rodrigues errors are corrected along the way by more reliable secondary sources as the breaking news falls away. The correction was actually a rarity because the speed of the news was so fast and refuted so quickly that there was lots of followup regarding his statement and the conflict with CRU. We can't be the ones that decide which of Rodrigues statements are accurate and so we should simply replace them all including vestigial sections based on speculation (the fate of the pride cubs were from an early Rodrigues statement regarding the "rival lion Jericho" and the belief by Rodrigues that he would kill all the cubs). While lion infanticide does happen, this seems to not be relevant to this article as this was a shared coalition pride. --DHeyward (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)



The removal of the effect on conservation section is completely inappropriate. Though you may not like the POV expressed in the section, it is a valid POV, and one that was widely represented by reliable sources IN THE CONTEXT OF CECIL. Note that all these articles include cecil IN THE URL, as well as discussing the killing extensively in the article.

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the section as it stood included literally nothing explaining how anything it said was about Cecil, and expecting the readers to figure it out from the URLs isn't how it works. It used these sources to basically make a statement - without attributing it to a contested POV, but simply a set of self-professedly factual statements - that hunting aids conservation. If a similarly-themed section merits inclusion, then it has to be rewritten completely. That's up to anyone wanting to support this somewhat counter-intuitive ("killing wild animals saves them") POV, and then it will be up to others to offer a balancing POV (both attributed in-text, not given as factual), to achieve WP:NPOV. LjL (talk) 18:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Presentation of content in sources offered by RfC initiator

The sources cited by the editor who started the RfC above actually point to the opposite direction of the conservationist argument. (My emphasis throughout). To wit:

  • SOURCE CNBC: "A 2009 report from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature said that regulated hunting can help conservation efforts, but that its record has produced "mixed results." Jeff Flocken, North American director for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, said most people are unaware that lions and other big game animals are regularly killed for sport."
  • SOURCE Brookings: "Allowing some level of hunting can, in theory, give hunters, ranchers, and other people close to the wild resource a stake in preserving the species and the entire ecosystem and managing it sustainably. In theory, managed hunting, such as trophy hunting, however, puts money in the pockets of landowners legally, perhaps even raising the standard of living of close-by rural populations. In an optimal scenario, money raised from trophy hunting would be channeled to underpaid and underequipped rangers so as to increase their capacity and will to combat poaching. But many of these presumed positive outcomes often do not materialize, or at least do not fully materialize. A hunting license may be legal and still have disastrous effects on the environment. Trophy hunting can also encourage breeding programs for animals. Whether or not such breeding benefits the environment depends on whether wild populations are thriving or being poached even as the breeding programs mass produce animals for legal hunting and whether the rest of the ecosystem is being preserved or logged or grazed down. To whom does the money from trophy hunting go: Is it stolen by government and park officials or captured by few landowners without being actually invested in conservation? Corruption and governance matter hugely. Corruption is also crucial in the issuing of licenses. And licensing complicates law enforcement [which] is extraordinarily resource-intensive and easily overwhelmed. Moreover, the tracing [of culprits] often takes place only post facto, once the animal is dead. Finally, permitted trophy hunting may overall encourage demand for such trophies beyond sustainable culling."
  • SOURCE Scientific American: "The consequence of killing one male—whether legally or illegally—is that it weakens the male coalition he was part of, often a brotherhood. A larger, stronger coalition comes in and usurps them, often leading to the death of the surviving brothers. The incoming males will generally kill the cubs of the incumbents. A simple-minded approach might have thought one less lion is one less lion. The reality is that one less lion can lead to the deaths of many other lions, as well as a reshuffling of their local spatial organization and society." Note: Nowhere in the Scientific American article is the conservationist viewpoint supported.
  • SOURCE New York Times: "Animal rights groups say it is simply unethical to kill animals in the name of conservation. They contend — and most conservationists agree — that there are problems with trophy hunting. Proceeds from hunting are not always funneled into conservation efforts. Unlike those in Namibia, hunting programs elsewhere, including a long-existing one in Zimbabwe, fail to bring full benefits to local populations."
  • SOURCE CNN: "While it is sad that we sometimes have to resort to killing animals for conservation, let's not allow emotions to overtake our arguments. Conservation is a complex, difficult industry and needs all the financial help it can get: we are after all living through the sixth mass extinction. [Link to "mass extinction leads to the following section.] Whether it’s pollinating our crops, purifying our water, providing fish to eat or fibres to weave, we are dependent on biodiveristy. Ecosystems can only continue to provide things for us if they continue to function in approximately the same way. The relationship between species diversity and ecosystem function is very complex and not well understood. There may be gradual and reversible decreases in function with decreased biodiversity. There may be effectively no change until a tipping point occurs. The analogy here is popping out rivets from a plane’s wing. The aircraft will fly unimpaired if a few rivets are removed here or there, but to continue to remove rivets is to move the system closer to catastrophic failure.
This latest research tells us what we already knew. Humans have in the space of a few centuries swung a wrecking ball through the Earth’s biosphere. Liquidating biodiversity to produce products and services has an end point. Science is starting to sketch out what that end point could look like but it cannot tell us why to stop before we reach it."
  • SOURCE National Geographic: "Wayne Pacelle, the president of the Humane Society of the United States, says, "The first rule of protecting a rare species is to limit the human [related] killing." The Safari Club International Foundation previously wrote on National Geographic’s website: “As with the regulated hunters in the United States, the regulated hunters in Africa make a vital contribution to conservation efforts, primarily through the revenues their hunting expeditions generate for local communities and wildlife resource agencies.” The foundation has not yet responded to a request for comment. Other hunters are taking a closer look at a practice that critics say is prone to corruption, fuels demand for black market wildlife products, and can be too hard to enforce on the ground, leaving lions like Cecil to end up as collateral damage. Another practice increasingly coming under scrutiny is the raising of lions on game reserves specifically for the purpose of hunting. Late last week, Hermann Meyeridricks, president of the Professional Hunters’ Association of South Africa, asked his membership to reconsider its position on the practice, which opponents call 'canned hunting'.”

There is hardly any support for the conservationist argument that merits the extended inclusion of it the way it is demanded by the RfC initiator. One easily concludes therefore that the argument put forth in the RfC, i.e. that the contested, pro-conservationist section should be restored, must be rejected as it remains unsubstantiated. -The Gnome (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm honestly a bit confused by people who think the section should or would be presented as exclusively either pro or con. I can't picture it any other way than presenting the two opposing viewpoints with due weight - namely (a) that trophy hunting is important to raising funds for conservation, and the various bans are therefore hurtful, and (b) that trophy hunting erodes population size and/or structure and/or processes, i.e. being a net negative, and the bans are therefore good. Both perspectives can be properly sourced and placed directly in the context of the various bans that happened ONLY because of the outrage over Cecil (which, again, is unambiguously clear from RS and direct quotes by relevant ministers and executives/spokespersons). Samsara 19:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Concur with Samsara. WP:WEIGHT weighs in, so to speak. And unless the section directly involves the effect that the killing of Cecil the lion (.i.e., the article topic) had on conservation, then it would just be a generalized section not specific to the topic — and we already have such general articles on this and related subjects. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
In order to dissipate any confusion, let me clarify that what is contested here in the RfC (and an RfC cannot change course or objective midcourse!) is the reintroduction of the deleted section on conservationism as is, meaning as it was before it was removed. That section, however, particularly in view of what the relevant sources present, was clearly in violation of the Wikipedia rule on offering contradictory viewpoints to their respective proper extent. Hope this helps. -The Gnome (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Samsara wrote: "I can't picture it any other way than presenting the two opposing viewpoints with [their respective] due weight." I agree and, as it happens, I believe that this is the correct way forward. However, as stated above, this should be the subject of a new, different RfC. For the time being, we are voting in this RfC and this RfC is about whether or not to restore the section on the conservationist viewpoint as is, or rather as it was before it was deleted. But restoring it "as it was" is evidently unacceptable. -The Gnome (talk) 08:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

effect on conservation RFC

There is consensus not to restore the section as it was prior to the removal, based on WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE, and WP:COATRACK. There is no consensus if the section should be restored in a different version that meets WP:UNDUE, while some argue that such information should be in the article as a section because it was discussed by sources for this article, others argue that it is out of the scope of this article. However, there seems to be consensus that the existance of such disputes can be briefly mentioned, as this wouldn't go against WP:COATRACK and other similar arguments.--Müdigkeit (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the "Effect on conservation" section be restored? (or rather, should it not be removed, since its existance was the status quo)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Survey

  • Strong restore per WP:NPOV "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." This POV is one that is discussed by numerous reliable sources, specifically in the context of Cecil. Its removal is a blatant POV violation. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Definitely do not restore as-is because it's WP:POV presented as fact, without much in terms of in-text attribution of the counter-intuitive stance that hunting animals saves them. It is also badly written as it doesn't specify in any way how any part of it is directly related to Cecil, making it WP:COATRACK. I'm open to an entirely rewritten such section, with a scope strictly covering how Cecil's killing specifically may have affected conservation, and with careful in-text attribution (nothing like "Legal and social deterrents to trophy hunting may have negative effects on conservation efforts", but "According to [source], it's possible that ..."). LjL (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it needs to be more closely tailored around Cecil's case, starting perhaps with mentioning (possibly for a second time and in brief) the various hunting bans or moratoria as well as the new transport rules, and then discussing their impact. So I guess that's a restore and edit. Samsara 20:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - We have Wikipedia articles on conservation and related topics. The section here was not about Cecil specifically, nor did it say anything about the effects of the killing that the rest of the article did not say. It was simply a general essay about hunting and conservation, and a completely one-sided one at that. --Tenebrae (talk)
  • Oppose as bold remover based on previous discussion. This is the killing of a single lion. Whether hunting is good or bad for conservation cannot be adequately covered here, nor can this article put this particular killing in perspective w.r.t conservation. The main claim to notability is the social media response to this single killing and the emotions it evoked. We have articles on conservation that can put this event in perspective within the overall subject of wildlife conservation but we cannot adequately cover conservation within the narrow topic of the killing of a single lion. It would make this article a coatrack. It's the same reason we don't explore how many people lions killed in Zimbabwe. --DHeyward (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The section was in place for a while and was only deleted today. The RfC is seeking consensus for the status quo of keeping the section, not restoration. -- GreenC 22:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The killing of Cecil is not limited to a literal recounting of his death. It involved many aspects. One of those is it sparked a world-wide outrage and concern over wildlife conservation. An article about this event that neglects that is incomplete. This is not a COATRACK, it is the fact of the matter. Numerous sources discussed it in the context of Cecil. -- GreenC 22:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • oppose the content as written it is WP:COATRACK. it is possible that this event may have an effect on conservation that should be covered, but any coverage would need to be specifically tailored as to how this event had an effect on conservation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Restore. It's not coatracking to include information on the broad impact of an event so long as the sources and the material relate directly to the topic of the article. In this case, they do, so the material is generally relevant. Some edits, of course, would make it better. But the subtopic is suitable. We should include what sources say, per NPOV. 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
See threaded discussion below: Reply about COATRACK
  • Oppose restoration per above WP:COATRACK arguments. StAnselm (talk) 02:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose restoration The version linked at the top is not the right way to include this information. I was expecting this source[2] to convince me otherwise, but Cecil, despite being in the title, is tangential to the actual message of the article. At best (not completely convinced) some aspects could be mentioned in a sentence or two under reactions if properly attributed and directly linked to this incident. For example Many national parks sell excess animals to private ranches. Private game reserve owner Stewart Dorrington says that if the negative reaction to the killing of Cecil results in a ban on hunting, it may reduce the national parks budget as trophy hunters pay a higher price than the animal would get if sold form meat. The better place would be an article about big game hunting in general. AIRcorn (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. The sources invoked by the editor who initiated this RfC (and "strongly supports" inclusion of the contested section) actually show how one-sided the "conservationist" argument is. Therefore, to present it in the article in the extent and manner demanded by that editor goes very clearly against Wikipedia rules. For reasons of space, the detailed rebuttal to the sources cited is given further below, in the section "Presentation of content in sources offered by RfC initiator". -The Gnome (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Definitely do not restore as-is - Pretty poorly masked WP:POV push. NickCT (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose restoration The deleted content was basically a essay (with references) advocating trophy hunting. Would suggest proposing a more neutrally worded paragraph on the talk page for inclusion in the article.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose restoration. As it is right now it violates WP:COATRACK. The material could be relevant, but it would have to be reworded, and included in the background section near the start of the article, not at the end. Banedon (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

DHeyward Although certainly the previous content could be improved to state this better : The section was not attempting to say whether or not hunting was good for conservation. It was attempting to describe if changes in policy (or social pressure) done specifically in response/context of Cecil were good for conservation. To answer that question, one must talk a bit about the overall current state though, so as to be able to describe how the situation changes, and why those changes may (or may not) be important. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. Samsara 23:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Well... it failed at doing that. It only implied that hunting was good for conservation, without really mentioning changes in policy due to the Cecil event or what they may entail (unless one went to click on the sources, but sources are meant to verify articles, not to do the article's job). LjL (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
So it needs to be edited. Nothing novel in that. Samsara 23:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:PRESERVE WP:NPOV "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage" Gaijin42 (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I would have to note that aside from clearly being biased it was not directly related to the article subject but was simply a general essay on hunting and conservation. It was very much not specifically about the killing of this particular lion. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It needs to be rewritten from scratch, not edited, as nothing in its current state could be salvaged, for the reasons mentioned (no part in it said what it was "attempting" to say). When no part of something is salvageable, it needs to be deleted. Whether something else that covers a similar topic can be added later is orthogonal. LjL (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Strongly disagree - it is quite salvageable. Now that we seem to agree something should be written about this, why not start with *something*? Samsara 00:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
TheRedPenOfDoom Do you argue that the section materially misrepresented the sources? In my reading, they discussed the general effect (positive and negative) of trophy hunting on conservation, and how changing that status quo (removal of funds or incentives for protection) could negatively impact conservation efforts? Gaijin42 (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Thought the above says "TheRedPenOfDoom" it links to me. If I'm the one you were asking, I would say, no, but that it cherry-picks sources to put forth a WP:SYNTH argument. Surely, there is more to one side to the issue. It beggars belief that trophy hunting is the sole, only possible method of animal conservation.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I tried to ping both you and TRPOD, it didn't work right. If these sources are cherry picked, please identify the sources that are discussing the topic of cecil and the incident's effect on conservation which take the opposite POV. Certainly there are arguments to the contrary, and other types of conservation. This is the aspect that sources chose to discuss, which is somewhat understandable, as it is the aspect that is directly being affected by the legal and social changes. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The content as written is completely unacceptable, what might be written is impossible to comment upon other than "something might be acceptable". If you wish more comment than that, provide a draft of proposed content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Have to agree. It's the burden of the editor(s) who wrote that section to justify their edits. To suggest that clearly non-neutral content remain until other editors fix up their mistake is not the way it works.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
If there was an effect on conservation that actually reliable sources suggest, then yes, something should be written. But I am really skeptical that "something" valid can be created that's heavily based on the old section, but if you can pull that off... well, feel free to show us. Not sure if putting it in the article is appropriate at this point, but you could draft it here, I suppose?
In the end, it's the end result that matters, but in the meanwhile, I'm really uncomfortable with keeping a biased, seemingly unrelated and overall bad section in the article. LjL (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Policy directly contradicts your uncomfortableness. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Do we really need to wikilawyer why? "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't": well, I couldn't fix this problem, since I deemed the whole section unsalvageable, so I removed it, as directly allowed by the policy. "Likewise, as long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies": well, they didn't meet WP:NPOV at all, and only arguably met WP:V since the validity of the sources is being discussed. Note that everywhere else, when the policy suggests not removing material, it always suggests to "consider" doing other things, without in any way forbidding removal when warranted per the above. So, policy directly supports my uncomfortableness. LjL (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
you are seriously suggesting that cnn, nyt, natgeo and others are invalid sources? The section (mostly) matched the POV of the sources, thats what NPOV means, not WP:FALSEBALANCE. Gaijin42 (talk) 00:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
That's a strawman. Now you are not refuting my argument that policy backs me, but instead moving to disputing my assertion of section WP:POV, which is amply shared by many others in this debate, including some who, in line of principle, want the section "kept and edited". Those sources aren't invalid; the section is.
Some of the sources may appear to take a pro-hunting POV partly because they're openly playing "devil's advocate" and acknowledging that the intuitive answer is obvious. I quote one of them: "Can trophy hunting ever be a useful tool in the conservationist’s toolbox? On the surface, the answer would appear obvious. It seems as if the killing of an animal – especially an endangered one – for sport is directly contradictory to the goal of ensuring the survival of a species".
You also mention by name sources that appear to take that POV, but other sources in the section (CNBC, Brookings, Conservation Magazine, Scientific American) take a much more skeptical stance - which the section did not reflect. LjL (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
A mere sentence after your quote And the answer, as usual, is more complicated. followed by an entire article discussing how it is beneficial. yes I am refuting your argument that policy backs you. please provide RS that discusses cecil's effect on conservation that takes the opposite POV In the absence of any, WP:DUE indicates that the prevailing POV should be represented, even if it is "counterintuitive". That naively counter-intuitive solutions work is really not unexpected. particularly not in the natural sciences controlled burn, culling, amputation etc. I admit that the contrary view needs representation. However, the contrary view is essentially the entire rest of the article - but I do not object to the section being expanded and improved with the skepticism and improvements in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV Gaijin42 (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
No, the rest of the article is as neutral as can be after countless editors have honed it for weeks now. At this point, after all the commentary by other editors showing that the cited articles were cherry-picked to purposely reflect a POV stance, your weak arguments and your entrenched position now makes it look as if you are arguing for a pro-hunting POV stance yourself. I'm not seeing a lot of support for that.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
As I said, a few of the sources that were already in the section do a decent job of being skeptical of the "hunt is conservation" POV. The section just conveniently cited them without conveying that. I quote, for instance, from the interview in Scientific American: "And we’ve now had enough episodes of male lions being killed that we’ve been able to see how the death of one lion has perturbations that affect others. [...] The reality is that one less lion can lead to the deaths of many other lions, as well as a reshuffling of their local spatial organization and society.". Wow... sure sounds like it helps conservation, eh? Later it goes, "There are some conservationists who would argue that in some places, it's the best way of attributing value to lions, [...] Other people would take the view that it is abhorrent under any circumstances.". This balance of views wasn't very carefully reflected in the section, to say the least. LjL (talk) 00:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Generally, one spends more time complaining about such things than one would fixing them. Samsara 05:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It goes both ways. You seem the one most interested in keeping this stuff, with or without editing it. Then edit it and make it gain more consensus (because it currently has very little). LjL (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Prematurely and falsely declaring consensus to be on your side is not good karma. Samsara 16:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Neither is falsely declaring that I declared existence of consensus. I said that there is a position that currently has very little consensus. I made no claim that there is consensus for a different position. There is a difference that should be easily seen... as is the fact that there is currently little support/consensus for keeping the section (and extremely little for keeping it unchanged). LjL (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Reply about COATRACK

@2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C: as you say, the sources and the material (especially the material! that's what Wikipedia readers are reading, the sources are for verification) must relate to the topic. In this case, it did not. Only the sources did, but slapping relevant sources onto irrelevant material so that its presence can be justified is WP:COATRACK. This thing needs complete rewriting, not "some edits". LjL (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

@2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:F05D:49AD:7B3C:978C: Actually, that is EXACTLY what WP:COATRACKING - making comments about something OTHER than the subject of the article and that is EXACTLY what the removed content did - there was not one mention of how the Killing of Cecil impacted conservation - it was all strung together unattributed assertions that bounty hunting was good for conservation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

COATRACK is an essay. It's not a policy or guideline. Reliable sources have discussed Cecil in the context of conservation. We are reporting on what the sources said and did. Cecil was, according to the sources, a larger issue according to the sources. See WP:V. -- GreenC 05:09, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
while COATRACK is "an essay" , it reflects how to interpret and implement policies such as WP:NPOV which says that content must reflect the full range of mainstream professional views of the subject, and the policy WP:OR sub WP:SYN which says that we pull and utilize sourced material out of the context of the source to imply or suggest conclusions that are not specifically made the sources and the policy WP:V subsection Verifiability#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion which states While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. "the essay" COATRACK quite clearly demonstrates how the POLICIES apply in this instance. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It gives one interpretation that doesn't have broad consensus, otherwise it wouldn't be lingering as an essay since 2006. Let's not re-argue definitions - the plaque is quite clear on what an essay is. Samsara 13:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to re-argue anything. Essays may not always have complete consensus but prominent and oft-cited ones generally have broad support, otherwise people would change them, because it's a wiki. This discussion also shows there is broad support for considering this section "coatrack", so citing the essay is entirely relevant. LjL (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Certain people love citing certain essays. They may be "oft-cited" but they are also "oft-wrong". For example, that essay was never intended to prevent a situation like this where we have reliable sources discussing a topic in a broader context involving larger issues. -- GreenC 16:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Its nice to know that your interpretation of what everyone else meant and means is better than everyone elses interpretation! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Might even qualify as an essay. QED. Samsara 16:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cecil Effect

Hi Green Cardamom and others. Why is the term described as "controversial" in the article? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

See last sentence of second paragraph. -- GreenC 19:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Aaahhhhhhhh, the old "read the whole thing" reply, eh? Well played, my friend. Well, my face is redder than a candy apple that has been painted red and then viewed under giant red floodlights while wearing red tinted glasses. Basically, red. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Well that's pretty red. I say it become you. But you're right it could be better done. It would be natural to ask "why is it controversial?" before reading all the way through. I've added a duplicate of the ref with the quote. -- GreenC 20:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I tend to skim over things too quickly. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm not really sure the term is controversial (which is what the article states). I think people are disputing whether the effect is real or not. Anna, I hope you stop glowing soon - an easy mistake to make! DrChrissy (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi DrChrissy. :) Good point. Maybe it should be made clear which is controversial, the term or the effect. Also, is it controversial because one person says it is? Is he the big kahuna over there? Glowingly yours, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The source says "Some have referred to the trend as the “Cecil Effect.”" (emphasis added). And they put it in single quotes which suggests an origin somewhere, probably with someone(s) disapproving of what happened. If the term becomes accepted as a neutral descriptor remains to be seen. -- GreenC 21:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I have re-written the section. Any comments welcome. DrChrissy (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
The term "Cecil Effect" didn't exist prior to February 20, 2016 (10 days ago). It first appears in the Daily Torygraph article (based on research of news.google.com). It is then picked up by either other right-wing news outlets like Fox, or marginal sources like RT, all of whom have taken a positive editorial stance towards the killing of Cecil. It is a brand new neologism and it's inclusion as a term of currency is questionable due to the political undertones and lack of established definition (10 days!). Our article asserts this term as if its well established and understood, even sounding pseudo-scientific ("changes in human behavior") but is based on two newspaper articles. Our article and the sources use weasel words like "some say" making it difficult to know who is using this term and why, lacking context. -- GreenC 20:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I have no axe to grind here. I was simply trying to offer what I felt was a well-considered approach to a content dispute. To address all your concerns, especially neologism, I think you should be suggesting a deletion of the entire "Cecil Effect" section, however, because the term has been used in several sources, I suspect this would fail. DrChrissy (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the safest and most encyclopedic thing we might try is to rename the extant section "Consequences for the pride" to simply "Consequences" and add the "Cecil effect" paragraphs to that section without using the jargon "Cecil effect." --Tenebrae (talk) 21:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
That's a great idea. I think we should unbold cecil effect as well, unless or until it merits a redirect which has its own level of requirements that I don't think have been met with a 10 day old neologism. -- GreenC 21:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I made redirects Cecil Effect and The Cecil Effect. I'd be happy to delete them. Would that term be searchable without the redirects? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes it's a full text search so it would be found in search results without the redirects. -- GreenC 01:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Both deleted. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Walter Palmer infobox

I don't know about this. As heinous as the man's act may have been, he's a private citizen known publicly for only one thing. I think an infobox that's outside the context / perspective of prose may be violating WP:BLPPRIVACY. What do other editors thins? --Tenebrae (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Removed for now per BLP until there is consensus for inclusion. -- GreenC 16:29, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Also support. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Support b/c it seems like overkill at best and invasion of privacy at worst. Adds little to no relevant info. --prmcd16 👽 (u)•(t) 18:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Without Walter Palmer's act there is no page for Cecil the Lion. He is every bit as relevant to the story as is the Lion he killed. Having an infobox for one and not the other does not make any sense. Jefferythomas (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I still think there needs to be an infobox for Walter Palmer as he is still in the news. Jeffery Thomas 03:20, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Palmer dead?

Did Palmer fall to his death in 2016? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 02:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No. It was a different dentist guy who shot a lion in Africa posed for a picture and became reviled.[3] -- GreenC 03:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
He was still tweeting as of May 24, 2017 so no. Jeffery Thomas 04:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Like father, like son

Hi, did anyone notice the killing of Xanda the lion, that is Cecil's son? Leo1pard (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

News just hit the wire a few hours ago. I doubt it should be a separate article at this point, but certainly should be included in this one. -- GreenC 18:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
How about creating a new section within the section "Consequences for the pride," dedicated to Xanda, and redirecting the links for Xanda (Xanda, Xanda the lion and Killing of Xanda the lion) to it? Leo1pard (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I suppose so long as there is enough material to justify a sub-section. What can we say about it other than it happened? -- GreenC 14:35, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Saw it yesterday and left a Merge !vote. -- GreenC 16:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I can say that, apart from its happening, Oxford's Department of Zoology want a greater "no-hunting zone" around Hwange National Park, in response to it, and that other groups like the "Lions of Hwange" are outraged.[1][2][3] Leo1pard (talk) 17:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Xanda, son of Cecil the lion, killed by hunter in Zimbabwe". BBC News. 2017-07-20. Retrieved 2017-07-20.
  2. ^ Bever, L.; Brulliard, K. (July 20, 2017). "Cecil the lion's son has 'met the same fate' — killed in a trophy hunt in Zimbabwe, reports say". Washington Post. Retrieved July 20, 2017.
  3. ^ Damian Carrington (July 20, 2017). "Son of Cecil the lion killed by trophy hunter". The Guardian. Retrieved July 20, 2017.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_Cecil_the_lion/Archive_5&oldid=1136875958"