Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Second paragraph critique

Cecil was shot by Walter Palmer, an American recreational big-game hunter, who had wounded him with an arrow from a crossbow. He was then tracked, and on 1 July 2015, approximately 40 hours later, he was killed with a rifle. The killing drew international media attention and sparked outrage among animal conservationists, politicians and celebrities, as well as a strong negative internet response against Palmer.

This misses all the major points. The reason the case generated attention was that the lion is being alleged to have been shot illegally - possibly involving bribery of a park ranger who then assisted in getting the lion outside the national park, and possibly without any permit at all (only the Telegraph has so far claimed there was a permit, but without giving any further details). Lions being shot is an industry in Africa and has been for some time - the reason this case is interesting is because the lion, due to living in a National Park, was exempt from hunting, and the hunters deliberately undertook to circumvent this protection.

Second, you keep writing there was an internet response as though the response was restricted to the internet, which it wasn't - there's even a picture giving evidence of local action in the article, so why do we keep riding on this internet thing?

Samsara 21:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

My tupenceworth is to say that the Telegraph hasn't really said much about the supposed permit. And the language used is deliberately deflective saying they've seen a "relevant" permit instead of the more appropriate "valid" permit.

Also, just so you know, (apart from the permit issue) what made killing this particular cat illegal was that the cat was collared and it's illegal to kill a collared lion (except maybe for humanitarian reasons). Killing lions in the national park is not illegal so long as you have a valid permit and are within your quota. Apart from that these guys didn't have the correct land permit nor a valid permit to kill any lion much less a collared one. As to what makes this case interesting, I for one am truly flummoxed. Selector99 (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the potential illegality is one of the key characteristics and is not currently mentioned in the lede. Whether the Telegraph is correct in asserting that hunting is generally illegal inside the park is not a necessary condition for mentioning that various court cases are either pending or being considered in relation to the hunt. Samsara 23:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

If we don't mention the illegality we should. We do mention he was lured. It's clear that they were devious and broke many rules, including removing the collar. Go ahead and find the RS and add the content. We probably already have the sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the guide said they hunted at night with a spotlight, which is considered unethical in the US. The first paragraph has several errors according to the guide's story. He says the lion was wounded about ten o'clock at night and killed about nine the next morning with another arrow shot. That's only 11 hours. Also, Palmer has posed with a compound bow, not a crossbow. I would prefer fewer details to the ones given here that are disputed by the guide. Pkeets (talk) 05:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This may have started about legalities, but it's evolved into a sympathetic shitstorm. #CatLivesMatter, not #ProperPermitsMatter. The majority of the people who "care" about this story care about the poor dead lion and want vengeance, not justice. They don't care about other lions because nobody told them it was OK to. You can thank Jimmy Kimmel for that. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I doubt hunting at night is an issue in Zimbabwe where daytime heat can make many animals virtually nocturnal. Unless hunting them while they sleep during the day is the preferred option. If legality's the issue then we already know that the hunt and kill are illegal because the environment minister issued a press statement confirming exactly that (even listing specific laws that had been broken). This is currently the first ref under Criminal Investigation in the article; [illegal hunt]. There's no 'alleged' about it.

If the environment ministry in a press statement issued through the controlling authority, Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority, isn't a reliable source then I don't know what is. The Zimbabwean government is a reliable source on Zimbwean law, I reckon. So if anyone wants they can go ahead and change the current wording to, "Cecil was illegally shot by....". Unless I'm missing something. Selector99 (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

You're missing a conviction. Your source only lists allegations. You can state the law and state the act, and state what law enforcement says about the act (with attribution), but you can't state the act broke the law in Wikipedia's voice, because that would presume guilt. It's all in WP:BLPCRIME. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

These guys are the only reliable source for turning criminal allegations into fact. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you're over complicating something quite simple. A conviction's not required for a crime to take place. If a robbery takes place the police can confirm it. It doesn't take a court or government ministry to confirm the same. A court's required to convict someone of a robbery but not to establish a crime's taken place - that's usually a matter for appropriate authorities. Likewise killing; police will establish if a person's dead, a coroner will establish if a death was unlawful(illegal) and a court will establish the guilt or otherwise of a suspect. An unlawful (illegal) killing can be confirmed before a murder trial or even before any charges are brought. In the case of a cat, there'll be no coroner's inquest. The appropriate authority is Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority who fall under the Ministry of Environment. The Authority has conducted an investigation and concluded the cat was illegally killed. In which case, while we may not say, "Cecil was illegally killed by...." we can certainly say that "Cecil was illegally killed" and provide the Authority as a source. Selector99 (talk) 08:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

That only works so long as we don't say who killed Cecil elsewhere. Because one plus one is two. Good luck omitting that. And a coroner never determines whether a killing was unlawful. Whoever told you that is an idiot. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I know precisely how it works but I've got no bone in this subject. I simply joined in to state the obvious and if anyone wants help with the wording I'll be happy to assist. It's perfectly fine to say someone who's been killed has been murdered if murder has been determined - you know, like in a drive-by shooting. You can then equally record freely (write in a Wiki article) any suspects who've been charged or are awaiting trial. They're murder suspects just as the dentist and others are the prime suspects in the illegal killing of Cecil. It's not a biggie.

As for what Coroners do (or more properly, coroner's courts), I think you'll find you're wrong or being pedantic. Here's a list of possible coroner's verdicts including unlawful killing. Zimbabwe's criminal justice system is loosely based on England's with it being a Commonwealth country until 2003. But in Zimbabwe the process is simpler; a government pathologist will investigate suspicious deaths on behalf of the police and determine any foul play. The police will then determine if a death is unlawful. With cats the process is even simpler; in Zimbabwe Cecil's killing is officially illegal(unlawful) as declared by the government after an official investigation by the appropriate authority. As the article currently states in the government minister's words, 'the hunter broke Zimbabwean law and needs to be held accountable'. It's not rocket science. Selector99 (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

There's an RfC on the Crime and Criminal Biography Wikiproject Talk about about whether "murder" presumes the killer a "murderer". Some say it obviously does, some it clearly doesn't. They can't be both be right, yet they are. Strange.

I was partially wrong about coroners. Thinking in Canadian terms. Sorry to whoever told you that. Probably not an idiot. But even in the inquest places, the article says "normally proceedings in the coroner's court are suspended until after the final outcome of any criminal case is known."

All "the government" is not equal, though. It seems weird for an Environment ministry to be the appropriate authority on Justice matters, but not impossible. Is this the case in Zimbabwe, or can they only make recommendations? Ministry of Environment (Zimbabwe) sure doesn't help. At least Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs (Zimbabwe) mentions responsibility for courts. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't told about coroners. It's just something I know from experience. Although inquests are often adjourned (to avoid duplication or so as not to prejudice a subsequent trial) it's not uncommon for inquests to be completed before trials regardless. And a not guilty trial verdict won't stop or affect an unlawful killing inquest verdict. This is because murder's a technical term involving intention and knowledge of consequences... but I detract. Wiki editing talks of NPOV, no opinions, no use of personal knowledge/experience with truth bowing to verifiability. As such if an editor wanted to call the lion's killing illegal I reckon they have good reason and reliable source. Selector99 (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Crossbow or compound bow?

The lede continues to state that the initial shooting was with a crossbow, where there's photographic and textual evidence that it was a compound bow. Here is one example. Unless anyone objects here, I'll change it later today.--Phil Holmes (talk) 09:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. But I see that the lede says "... although it was widely reported at the time that a crossbow was used". 1. This statmement is not supported in the main body. Is it really needed in the lede? 2. The word "crossbow" still appears in the main body. 3. All the initial radio (and some television) reports that I heard referred to it, possibly more accurately, as a "bow and arrow". Martinevans123 (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree this subject should be raised distractingly in the lede, if at all in the main text either. Why not just say "bow and arrow" - we can't be wrong there.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

We need to get this right before ANY change is made. Get a consensus first! Some sources are careless and simply write bow and arrow as a generic description. They hear Cecil was shot with an arrow and assume it was from a typical bow, but many RS state the arrow came from a crossbow. When we have a conflict between RS, we need to sort it out. If we can't, then we have to report both, using the best sources. Here OR wording is substituted for a RS! That's really bad.

Images are tricky because the press has also used unrelated images of Palmer where he's holding a compound bow. He uses compound bows and crossbows.

I don't see anything in the link above which conclusively proves that the lion in the image is Cecil (the wording is even vague), or that he used a compound bow on Cecil. It's one source which doesn't mention a crossbow, while many others do. If I'm missing something in that source, please quote it below. I might have missed it. This demands careful parsing.

The OR addition of "... although it was widely reported at the time that a crossbow was used" is an open admission of a policy violation, because we are supposed to write what RS "widely reported at the time", unless we have better sources which prove them wrong. Where are those sources? -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed until it can be settled... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I doubt very much this will be settled easily. How about "...shot with a bow and arrow (although sources differ whether it was a compound bow [refs] or a crossbow [refs])" DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

In this case the crossbow doesn't carry much weight since the "trophy picture"[1] shows a compound bow and it would be highly unusual to show a different weapon. It looks like mistaken reportage. (Edit: the Trophy picture says "one of his many trophies", not "Cecil", so it may not be Cecil, per BullRangifer). -- GreenC 21:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well I see that Grauniad does start off with "bow and arrow", but then does go on: "Noting that Palmer had learned to shoot at age five and was “capable of skewering a playing card from 100 yards with his compound bow.. " Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's the first hand account. Even if it's unsuitable as a citation for the article, this is the man who was there and he says it was a bow and arrow. Nowhere does he mention a crossbow. Pkeets (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Green Cardamom is correct about the image. It's not of Cecil, so it doesn't help us at all. We do know that Palmer could use a compound bow or crossbow, which are both types of "bow and arrow" combinations. The lay expression "bow and arrow" is generic and doesn't necessarily specify what type of bow.

Pkeets, why can't that source be used? It would be considered a RS here. It documents that the first shot, and later the killing shot, were both done with a "bow and arrow". Unfortunately this creates a conflict with all other sources, which say he was killed with a gun. Therefore we would follow them, and not this one, about the use of a gun.

We use these RS, which are more specific, and they say crossbow:

• Crossbow, but killed later with a gun.
• Crossbow
• Crossbow and rifle
• Crossbow

There is no justification for removing the word "crossbow" from the article. We must follow the sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I can raise you by one with "compound bow":

• • arrow fired from the compound bow
  • Palmer then shot him with a compound bow
  • shot and wounded the lion with a compound bow
  • an arrow fired from the compound bow
  • arrow fired from the compound bow of a Minnesota dentist

Yes, we must follow the sources, but which ones? WWGB (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I have suggested we report both "camps" of sources. If they have reported both types of bow were used, we must report that. We may never actually know the truth, but we can inform the readers that sources were divided on what type of bow was used. I do not think the average reader will feel misled if we report "bow and arrow" in the lede and discuss the division in reporting in the body of text.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite a good idea, I think. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree with DrChrissy's original suggestion "shot with a bow and arrow (although sources differ whether it was a compound bow [refs] or a crossbow [refs])" in the body and "bow and arrow" in the lead. -- GreenC 15:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A crossbow would be a poor choice of weapon for hunting game this size. The bow is smaller, which results in a reduced power stroke. The compound bow would be the superior weapon, as it has a mechanical system that doubles the power stroke of a full-sized bow while lessening strain on the user. The compound bow also shoots a full length arrow, which will be more accurate over a longer distance. Palmer shot from a blind, which means from a distance. It's very likely people looked at the high-tech mechanics of the compound bow and didn't know what it was. Pkeets (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent discussion and resolution! Thanks to WWGB for finding more sources. Good job. I agree with DrChrissy's solution, as seconded by Green Cardamom. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The guide disputes that the lion was killed with a rifle. Perhaps we should just say "killed." Pkeets (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he did say that. The question is what weight to give him, against multiple sources which say gun or rifle. We know that breaking news is often a mess, with one source getting their information from other sources, and maybe only one, or none(!), getting their info from a truly accurate source. Thus it's possible for multiple RS to actually repeat an error. Our problem is whether we have any RS evidence that such is the case. Normally a first hand account is the best evidence one can find. Are there any other sources of information about this? Maybe sources we haven't found will clear up this conundrum. We need a solution to this new aspect.

This should not stop anyone from fixing the other parts, as agreed above. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

cecilthelion.org

Cecil the Lion sells T-shirts and accepts donations which it claims to donate 100% to the non-profit who collared Cecil. Is there any evidence this is a legitimate organization that deserves attention at Wikipedia? It's not uncommon in events like this for fly by night orgs to appear who accept "donations" which go into someone's bank account. -- GreenC 23:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably not acceptable because of our strict no commercials policy.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

OK that policy supports the guideline WP:ELNO #5 (promoting a non-profit), #11 (unofficial fan site). Perhaps if/when the website was discussed in a third party reliable source it could be included in the article itself. -- GreenC 02:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Reactions in neighboring countries

There's a section for reactions in Zimbabwe and a section for reactions "overseas." I don't see any place to put other reactions. The South African comic strip Madam & Eve (with over 4 million readers) had a storyline about a lion fleeing from "big game hunting dentists" because "look what happened to Cecil!" https://web.archive.org/web/20150812042732/http://www.madamandeve.co.za/ (Internet Archive link archived as it appeared on August 12, 2015 4:27:32 AM UTC) Cloveapple (talk) 04:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Link with whole story line: http://web.archive.org/web/20150812063636/http://www.employees.org/~lwood/madam-and-eve/comics.cgi?shown=7&comic=5952 Cloveapple (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"Major tourist attraction"and "citation needed?"

What is your opinion on this subject: Opening section introduces the lion as a major attraction, "citation needed" follows it. However,I think the first source mentions already his status as a major attraction.And there are other mentions in the body of the article.The first source, the National Geographic article says: "Lions are at the top of every safari tourist's wish list, and Cecil's iconic status alone probably helped generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in tourism each year." "Iconic status," how you would understand that, not as a major tourist attraction? Maybe someone will post a better additional source, but I think this mention about iconic status is good enough already. Bialosz (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Almost every recent news article reports that Cecil is a major attraction, that's clearly enough. Editor abcdef (talk) 08:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I was surprised to see the "citation needed" part added after the "major tourist attraction", I confess, but was reluctant to undo it. Good to hear another opinion.As I provided the link to the article, which I also quoted here in the in OP of this part ,I was not sure if I was maybe biased, or so.But already another editor undid this citation needed piece, as I see now.Bialosz (talk) 10:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is my view of the matter: To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet uncovered a single solitary reliable source published before his death that states that Cecil was a "major attraction" or "famous". Sources published in Zimbabwe since his death cast additional doubts on those claims. We have an international media sensation with lots of reporters filling their stories with hype. If someone can produce even one source published before his death that calls him a famous major attraction, then I will drop my opposition. Lacking such evidence, I consider it nothing but hype. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find a reference even on the parks web page. "Lions" are a major tourist attraction. This particular lion may have been more accustomed to people but he was also pretty old for a wild lion. It kinda smells like a word I'm going to make up: agendaneering. That his name and death started in the 1st world press and not Zimbabwe makes me leary that this page should be covering an event or controversy rather than the lion. --DHeyward (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course this is a made-up "controversy." Each day native poachers, paying no $35,000 licenses each to African governments, kill rhinos and elephants to export the ivory to China. It's not even news anymore. African governments annually sell the right to hunt 243 lions (source: Lindsey PA, Balme GA, Funston P, Henschel P, Hunter L, et al. (2013) The Trophy Hunting of African Lions: Scale, Current Management Practices and Factors Undermining Sustainability. PLoS ONE 8(9): e73808. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0073808). That's one African-sanctioned "Cecil" killing every 36 hours. According to the same source, "In Kenya, where trophy hunting has been banned since 1977, for example, protected areas now lack the buffers that are provided by hunting blocks in many other African countries, and wildlife populations have declined by 60–70% since the hunting ban." It's interesting that Cecil was 13, and lions in Africa naturally live... from 10 to 15 years. Anyway, the fact the very National Park where Cecil lived didn't bother to mention its own "iconic" Cecil tells you all you need to know about how famous the poor old guy was. Where are the African photo safari pamphlets and advertising promoting $2,000 3-day stays to see "Cecil the icon". Nowhere, because Cecil, alas!, was not at all famous. XavierItzm (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this is a very real current controversy, and I am not trying to argue that it isn't. But covering the controversy neutrally is one thing. Repeating credulous claims that Cecil was "famous" or a "major attraction" is a completely different thing. No source is reliable 100% of the time, and newspaper sources written in the midst of a worldwide media sensation should be subjected to skeptical scrutiny. After my post above, I spent a fair amount of time searching for sources about a lion named Cecil in Zimbabwe dated before June 30, 2015. There are many mentions of the name "Cecil" in Zimbabwe since Cecil Rhodes was a major figure in their history. There are many mentions of "lions" in Zimbabwe, including a story of a lion attack on a human couple in the midst of having sex a few years ago. I even found mention of a sea lion nicknamed "Cecil" a few years ago, but not a feline lion, and most certainly not in Zimbabwe. But Cecil the lion in Zimbabwe? So far, no trace of this "famous" lion before his death. I will apologize to everyone if I am wrong and evidence of his fame is discovered. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: And I agree. But this article should be "Killing of Cecil the lion" as there is no coverage prior to the killing. It's not just the "citation needed" on "iconic", it's the whole concept of covering the event vs. creating an icon. We're not news so we shouldn't be repeating spoon-fed quotes (like the erroneous story of Cecil's brother, the erroneous story of the imminent death of Ceil's cubs, the erroneous story that the latest lion death would again jeopardize his cubs and the erroneous stories of his iconic status and draw). The reaction to the death and its fallout is the encyclopedic article. --DHeyward (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that we can revisit the article title when things calm down a bit, DHeyward. More immediately, vandalism of the article resumed immediately when semi-protection expired. But I do not want legends to be baked into the article. This is a neutral encyclopedia, not an animal rights activist blog. At least, it ought to be. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cullen328: No issues with waiting as long as we police the agendaneering. And the "Killing of Cecil the lion" has this as the infobox photo. --DHeyward (talk) 03:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Now, now, now DHeyward. Don't start getting people all riled up. Lions can be beastly, as zebras well know, but we must be ladies and gentlemen. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

For those who couldn't find a single thing that mentioned about Cecil before July, and who have some doubts whether anyone at all heard of Cecil before his death. My quick Google search rendered some facts that Cecil was mentioned as one of the attractions. I'm sure that we can search more if we really want to spend more time on this. As the way it is the search is extremely hard because old stories got flooded with tons of current news and Google "search tools" to limit the date range don't work so well. Here are some that I found:

• Review of the park
• Safari highlight of 2013 included a drama of Cecil and others
• Safari Destination blog entry in 2014 recounting the guide named Nick talking about Cecil
• an advertisement with "the opportunity to meet Cecil and her lioness cubs" as an attraction
• Another review in 2014 giving an update on the fallout between Cecil and Jericho
• A guide testimony as part of The Hide advertisement talking about Cecil and Jericho

... again i'm sure there are more ...

-- Z22 (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I commend you for your work Z22, and for discovering those sources which I could not find myself. As I see it, they are sufficient for backing up the claims made in media outlets after the lion's death. I apologize for raising the issue. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

No need to apologise, certainly. I had looked myself and hadn't found anything. So, yes - good work from Z22. StAnselm (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I initially couldn't find anything either, until I found a combination of words and search parameters that works. Z22 (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Kudos to user Z22 for dragging anything like the customised results you were looking for out of any search engine when search engines don’t generally know what impartial, customised results look like - particularly on a current news item. To the point, I'm not persuaded that the results prove anything more than Cecil having been a little known, minor celebrity far from the major or famous attraction being suggested. In which case I lean, with user DHeyward above, towards an article called The Death or Killing of Cecil the Lion with Cecil the Lion redirected to that article. This is based on articles on the deaths of real people here on Wiki. Seeing as there was no article on this cat this time last week, it seems revisionist to make out that he was a big deal. And to be fair, Cecil's death went pretty much unnoticed, considering he was killed on 1 July. It was news of his death some four weeks later that caused global outrage. There's a social science article somewhere called 'The Strange Case of Cecil the Lion' begging to be added to Wiki. But in the meantime, I think the main article is about his death and not his renown which came only after news of his death spread.Selector99 (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not the article should be renamed, it is another discussion. What the search result shows is that Cecil was in fact marketed as a major attraction in the Hwange park camps (to answer the original question). My search is pretty simple. Try "cecil", "hwange", and "camp", you will filter out a lot of noises from the current event. Then you can tune it a bit like -killing to filter out anything about the killing. Then you will start seeing things like this one (a safari report to promote the camp) where camp staff mentioned Cecil by name that it has "impressive size and handsome face." When talking about other animals, they don't mention any names or descriptions. I would say it was a major attraction for the camps around Hwange. Z22 (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Z22, great job, given the fact that now so much of older material is flooded with new information.As for popularity, there is also such phenomenon as word of mouth popularity, therefore I couldn't just dismiss the claims of Cecil's popularity by the media as credulous repeating only. For ex. the movie My Big Fat Greek Wedding became box office hit because of organic groundswell, word of mouth, and this was in 2002, before twitter. Another example of organic groundswell was a bestseller Celestine Prophecy, originally self published.Book 50 Shades of Grey started as fan-fiction tekst, and gained popularity organically before being heavy promoted and discussed global mega-bestseller.Those are of course classical examples, but my point is to be careful not to underestimate popularity which happens through word of mouth, often behind our own backs, organic gorundswell which happens before media, publishers and other outlets pick up the phenomenon for their own use.Bialosz (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that Cecil the Lion does not exist on the Hwange National Park Website, The University of Oxford Website (Conservation, Science, etc.) or anywhere else on the internet before July 2015. The claim of thousands of dollars lost in revenue is not credible considering there are hundreds of lions, thousands of leopards, tens of thousands of elephants and dozens and dozens of other animals in the Hwange Preserve which ranges over 5,000 square miles. Lions have an average life span of 15 years, Cecil, as he is named now was thought to be 13yrs old. Without media attention this lions passing would not have had any effect on the local economy, although his passing has done much for the local economy of the University of Oxford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilentM360 (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 01:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

What you're doing is called unsourced original research. We follow the sources. Do you have RS which document your claim? Are we misquoting RS? Have editors added their own unsourced opinions? To be able to act on your claim, we need answers to those questions. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"For those who couldn't find a single thing that mentioned about Cecil before July, and who have some doubts whether anyone at all heard of Cecil before his death." Straw man. From your links, it is evident that highly specialised tourism companies would, at times, mention Cecil, as well as other named lions, as wildlife that could be spotted while on a paid tour, or that had been spotted on this or that particular trip. Only one of the online brochures or blogs you cited actually makes a hard sell, of the type, "if you come, you'll get a chance to see lions such as Cecil and Jericho." This implies that yes, Cecil was promoted to at least some of the 50,000 annual visitors of Hwange National Park, 1/2 of whom are not Zimbabweans. Does that make the lion "famous"? Here is a New York Times article about the Great Platte River Road Archway, which had 50,000 annual visitors, and went broke in the U.S. in 2013. Must be famous, too? XavierItzm (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I said earlier that I wasn't persuaded the links corroborated anything more than little known, minor celebrity. I'm adding now that the search engine results do not back up the claim considering the name 'Cecil' was used in the search. To back up that Cecil was a major attraction at the park, as the article claims, a search would need to look for 'Hwange National Park', 'attraction[s]', maybe 'lion', and other relevant terms but definitely not 'Cecil'. Then if Cecil comes up it would go some way to proving he was attraction, of sorts, in his own right. Although it would still take more to confirm he was a major attraction. Selector99 (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Minister of Environment Water and Climate officially said so that Cecil was "an iconic attraction". Zimbarwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority also officially said that Cecil was "an iconic lion". Many reliable secondary sources have used it. So far we haven't been able to prove that the statement on the lion status is untrue. There were some publications to point out that local villagers did not know or wouldn't care about Cecil. This information is already included in the article at an appropriate section. However, this does not disprove about the status of a major attraction of the park attended by tourists since it is unlikely that the villagers would be the tourists. So you think the authorities of Zimbabwe lie about Cecil's status prior to his death? Z22 (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Without trying to be too provocative, by the time the minister and parks authority were commenting, factually, the lion had become "iconic". Doesn't mean or suggest it was hitherto iconic, famous or a major attraction. Selector99 (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

This pits editors' own OR Google "research" against RS. In that situation RS always wins. "Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack." A Google search can sometimes be useful, especially when it does find evidence, but when it doesn't, we really don't know anything and can't use that "lack of evidence". We have a "lack", and that lack of a RS isn't useful, hence we turn to actual RS and use them. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

"The Minister of [...] officially said so that Cecil was "an iconic attraction" " Right, the minister of a guy who has seized power since 1980. The government that has 79.6 billion percent inflation. These are the upstanding guys who inherited from the British the Zambian dollar from 1 USD being = 1 Zambian and took it to 1 USD = 2,621,984,228 Zambian (made everyone a billionaire!). Excuse me if I think these people are unreliable thugs. As Wikipedia reads: "According to human rights organisations such as Amnesty International[95] and Human Rights Watch[96] the government of Zimbabwe violates the rights to shelter, food, freedom of movement and residence, freedom of assembly and the protection of the law. There have been alleged assaults on the media, the political opposition, civil society activists, and human rights defenders." But yeah, I'll believe anything these baby-elephant eating people say about one lion, despite complete lack of evidence otherwise. XavierItzm (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Your political outrage notwithstanding, the government minister is a reliable source per Wikipedia standards. Those standards do not involve whether one personally likes him or believes him. I would also note that WIkipedia talk pages are for discussion of improving the article and not soapboxing about one's political feelings. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Gotta love it when people make stuff up and cite reliable source policy regardless of merit. Whereas the media citing the crooked politician may very well be a reliable source, politician's statements per se are not reliable source. XavierItzm (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

RevisionDeletion

Should the 18:34, August 14, 2015‎ 166.175.188.77 edit be revision deleted? It is a grossly offensive attack on a living person. VMS Mosaic (talk • contribs) 01:48, 15 August 2015‎

Yes, I believe that would be exactly the scenario envisaged by the policy. Remarks are now hidden. Samsara 03:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"First World Problem"

This source [2] speaks about a local view. Average Zimbabweans don't know about "Cecil" (probably not coincidentally sharing the name of Cecil Rhodes in a bit of western imperialist irony - not sure if Oxford intentionally this when they named the lion - Rhodesia and Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford are also named after him so probably not coincidence). "What lion?" acting information minister Prisca Mupfumira asked in response to a request for comment about Cecil, and For most people in the southern African nation, where unemployment tops 80 percent and the economy continues to feel the after-effects of billion percent hyperinflation a decade ago, the uproar had all the hallmarks of a 'First World Problem'. and "Are you saying that all this noise is about a dead lion? Lions are killed all the time in this country," said Tryphina Kaseke, a used-clothes hawker on the streets of Harare. "What is so special about this one?" and "Why are the Americans more concerned than us?" said Joseph Mabuwa, a 33-year-old father-of-two cleaning his car in the center of the capital. "We never hear them speak out when villagers are killed by lions and elephants in Hwange." - Close to 100 Zimbabweans are killed by crocodiles each year. It didn't say how many by lion though. I know an elephant killed a local hunting guide in a deliberate attack last week. Some of the sensationalist terms such as a description of baiting and some of the "2 days to find him" sound a bit off as well and probably not some wordsmithing to avoid BLP violations. --DHeyward (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The whole thing is a First World problem: Wealthy American pays $50K for lion trophy. Rips off local economy. Gets poor local guide and farmer in trouble. It wouldn't have been a big deal except that the research study was First World, too, and had access to the wider press. That's likely who was angry about this. Pkeets (talk) 14:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Local villagers may have a different view from their government. Clearly, the government is furious about the killing of Cecil. They plan to request for extradition of the dentist. At least they think the killing has a negative impact to their economy as already mentioned in the article. If we want to provide a balanced view, maybe we can cut out the third paragraph of the Reactions section and make it a separate "Zimbabweans" section. Then we can add some on the view of the local villagers to show two viewpoints between local people and its government. Z22 (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

per the source i read, the government isnt actually concerned about the killing of the lion, they care that the killing of the lion presents the country as unable (or more likely unwilling) to take appropriate actions which show that they have concern about their natural resources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I meant the 4th paragraph. Z22 (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward, Feel free to add your data to Crocodile attack, "Category:Deaths due to elephant attacks" and "Category: Deaths due to lion attacks".DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is about Zimbabwean's reaction to "Cecil the lion". But they don't really know anything about "Cecil" because they don't name their lions. They are largely unaware. However, big game permits are cash revenue. It's also a source of local food because trophy hunters leave the meat. The government is worried about a lot of things but the largest is that big game hunting licenses will go to $0 if countries or companies stop doing business (i.e. companies in shipping refuse to transport shipping). Zimbabwe will thread the needle here because they don't want scare off trophy hunters (they spend $50,000 while the national park tourist spend less than $2,000 on average). Local Zimbabweans get the meat from big game hunters too. If that money goes away, they will still get their meat (just as they do now) by poaching. Poor villagers don't like lions. They have poor table manners and have a tast for children. --DHeyward (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see my recent edit on revenue.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Z22 Local villagers may have a different view from their government. Clearly, the government is furious about the killing of Cecil. They plan to request for extradition of the dentist. At least they think the killing has a negative impact to their economy as already mentioned in the article.

The government doesn't really give a fig about this deceased cat. Only yesterday, the state run paper's editorial told the US & British Ambassadors to "go to hell" after President Mugabe warned the two countries to keep their noses out of unrelated local business affairs. There was no mention of or reference to cats. While the state may be feigning joining in global social media outrage on what is locally a non-topic, it can't honestly be said that they're "furious". Selector99 (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. There may be different fragments of the government that say different things. At least a part of their government was (or pretended to be) furious about the killing such that they demanded an extradition. That's why I already proposed in the above that we may want to split the 4th paragraph of the Reactions into a separate sub-section called Zimbabweans. Put the original paragraph there and add an opposite view on not wanting the outside power to pressure them about this issue. Z22 (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Have to be really careful there. they mentioned damage to their image which translates to tourism, hunting and shipping. The sold 20 elephants to China, for example. If, say, South African airlines is pressured to stop shipping trophy animals or accepting Safari parties for travel. Or if shippers are pressured not to transport big game animals to countries like China over this, they lose lots of revenue. Their image with all those interests is what they balanced. The U.S. has an extradition with Zimbabwe so we should be careful with saying they started extradition proceedings. It should be sourced to the person making that statement, not a general claim of fact. The killing of Jericho today is going to make it more difficult to thread this needle. There are 450 lions killed in Zimbabwe each year in from hunting. --DHeyward (talk) 22:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Today The New Yorker published that recently the "president" of Zimbabwe (in power since 1980) recently celebrated his birthday. On the menu: baby elephant. Go ahead, read all about it in the Washington Post: "Zimbabwe’s Mugabe condemns ‘white’ safaris, eats baby elephant at birthday bash". The Washington Post helpfully includes Mugabe taking a bite of his baby elephant lunch. The author of The New Yorker story is Robin Wright, who also mentions that Mugabe got the stuffed carcass of a hunted lion as a birthday present. You can read the New Yorker's article here: "Cecil the lion and Robert Mugabe". XavierItzm (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

All these, although good points, seem to be more like a forum of general discussion about the topic, not necessary about how to improve this article. I think we should use this space to focus more on the latter. Z22 (talk) 15:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, editors should consider the fact that (1) Government officers in Zimbabwe eat baby elephants and (2) Zimbabwe routinely sells lion hunting permits in considering just how relevant Cecil's death is.XavierItzm (talk) 08:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, the article would be improved by consideration of just how wildly blown out of proportion this sad story was. Each wild lion life is precious, but in truth, African governments sell a permit to hunt a lion every 36 hours. And on top of that there are many illegal lion killings. In Hwange National Park alone, five lions were poached in 2011, as its Wikipedia entry randomly notes for that year. 5>1, but no one seems to have noticed on social media! XavierItzm (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

NYT: "Did all those Americans signing petitions understand that lions actually kill people? That all the talk about Cecil being “beloved” or a “local favorite” was media hype? Did Jimmy Kimmel choke up because Cecil was murdered or because he confused him with Simba from “The Lion King”? In my village in Zimbabwe, surrounded by wildlife conservation areas, no lion has ever been beloved, or granted an affectionate nickname. They are objects of terror." XavierItzm (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I know it's not a forum but; Marauding Lions Kill 132 Cattle, Zimbabwean man killed by lions while showering Selector99 (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

These are all interesting background opinions, but completely tangential to this article, which concerns an animal whose death, for whatever reasons, resonated strongly around the globe and sparked much debate on trophy hunting, conservation and other topics. Several airlines, for example, have announced they will no longer ship trophy carcasses. Whatever one's personal feelings, this is an article of legitimate encyclopedic interest. "Lion conservation practices" and "How lions are viewed in Africa" are completely separate topics that should be discussed at Lion. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

References

To be fair, I wasn't really commenting; I was just chatting. Selector99 (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

this article, which concerns an animal whose death, for whatever reasons, resonated strongly around the globe ---see, this is demonstrably false. Plenty of evidence shows this article is about an animal whose death resonated in rich countries, and not in Africa. XavierItzm (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

"Cecil The Lion Made You A Moron"

Not my conclusion. Not you, anyway. The important thing is this Cracked article has many blue links to "real sources". Could be handy. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Great article! Indicates among other things that Cecil was not and could not have been a "Major tourist attraction". XavierItzm (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Cat lives really do matter, though, in general. In general, a good mattress also matters. Bob Barker said it before it was cool, and the Internet still knows it.

According to Cat.com, our furry friends are "genuine enabler[s] of sustainable world progress and opportunity, defined by the brand attributes of global leadership, innovation and sustainability." Awww! How sustainable! InedibleHulk (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, you cats, get off my savanah!. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Fun Fact: the difficulty in speaking, impaired consciousness, rolling eyes, staggering and tremors often dismissed as a natural part of walking on an old person's grass may actually be caused by a buildup of thiaminase from eating Anaphe venata caterpillars. Rather than simply yell back, suggest that muscranici-cholinergic like drugs may be of benefit in the management of patients that present with clinical condition of seasonal ataxia. If he yells "What?", scream "Google it!

A little awareness can go a long way. Or it can confuse and anger the shit out of people, like Cerura vinula, AKA the puss moth. All depends whether it turns out you truly needed to know in the first place. Sort of a crap shoot. Before you click this link, ask yourself "Am I feeling lucky"? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Eternally grateful for your posts, Inedible, as they make me look comparatively sane. I think Wikipedia should introduce a handy “I’m feeling especially unlucky” button. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

About the Dentist, his claims he "relied on his guides"

The dentist was cited almost $3k and given a year's probation for illegally killing a bear in 2006 in Wisconsin. He allegedly tried to pay ~$20k to members of his hunting party to lie about where the bear was killed. He had a permit to hunt in a different county, more than 40 miles from where he hunted and killed the bear. Citation and photo of him posing with the dead bear (with a compound or crossbow?) can be found at:

http://www.sfgate.com/world/article/Dentist-smiles-over-illegal-bear-kill-in-new-6444790.php

Should this be included in the article about Cecil, since it calls into doubt about the dentist's claim that he "relied on his guides" implying he was somehow duped into an illegal hunt?

Should there be a separate article about the dentist and his history of big game hunting violations?

I don't know enough about wiki policies to feel confident doing anything about this, so I post here and leave it to you who know more to decide.

98.248.207.44 (talk) 20:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes , I think that is relevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have inserted some of that information. Please check that the article now includes all relevant facets. Regards, Samsara 21:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Gosh, that was quick. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition. The rough consensus has been not to include Palmer's previous convictions as not being directly relevant to this incident. StAnselm (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Where is that "rough consensus" recorded? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The weapon in the bear photo is a compound bow. I vote that the info should be included, as it bears on the attitude of big game trophy hunters, and Palmer in particular. Pkeets (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look like there was a discussion - it was just that previous additions about Palmer's previous life were reverted. Indeed, you will need to demonstrate its relevance here. Are you suggesting that it shows he might be lying about Cecil? But we can't have those sort of insinuations here. StAnselm (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

As it is properly sourced, it does not fall foul of WP:BLP. I believe there is a similarity between the two incidents, which means there is a context for inclusion. Samsara 02:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

But one of the key ideas of our BLP policy is that sourcing is not enough. See WP:BLPGOSSIP - it must also be relevant. It would certainly be relevant to an article on Walter Palmer, but it is not relevant to an article on Cecil. StAnselm (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe there is a similarity between the two incidents, which means there is a context for inclusion. Samsara 02:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

It suggests that Palmer has little regard for proper permitting. He has blamed the local guide for the illegality of the hunt in Zimbabwe, but he should have questioned the circumstances, which seem shady by US standards. Pkeets (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm really not sure who has now become more notable, Cecil or Palmer. I'm not wholly convinced by the "if only we had an article about Palmer, but we don't" argument. Humans tend to have more to have said about them than animals. Of course Palmer is only notable because of this killing. He doesn't warrant an article of his own. But it's not always clear which is more notable - the murders, or the murderer(s)? And of course, we can't call this article "The Killing of Cecil (lion)" as the lion was notable enough to have his own article long before. Supposedly. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Was this (looks that way) a case of poaching? If so, wouldn't his prior acts of poaching be relevant to whether this lion was/wasn't intentionally poached? VMS Mosaic (talk) 11:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is part of the story of Cecil's death, as reported in multiple reliable sources. For now we should try and contain everything in a single article but it's possible future events could snowball and Palmer gets the lion's share of coverage. Creating an article for Palmer at some point might make sense, BLP1E might apply but not always when there is sustained coverage and he has prior coverage from earlier poaching. -- GreenC 21:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

No charges against Palmer and declaration that he hunted legally means this information needs to go. It's not relevant to his legal hunt of Cecil. --DHeyward (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It's relevant to the whole story? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

How is it relevant to Cecil the lion? this was a legal hunt with no action taken against Palmer so how is a bear taken in a different country with different guides under different circumstances relevant in any way except to smear someone that hasn't been charged with a crime? --DHeyward (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps we can all pretend it was never reported. Readers might imagine this was the first such activity of this kind that Palmer had engaged in. How is relevant? - the lion's dead. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

He's a big game hunter. That's covered. What other "activity" did you think the bear story highlights? --DHeyward (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

He's quite a rich big game hunter, isn't he? I'd have thought offering "about $20,000 for his hunting party to lie about the circumstances" of the bear shoot might illustrates quite well the kind of money he would pay to kill a lion. But I agree it's great he's such a reformed character. It's really paid off, hasn't it? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The bear story has been reported in nearly every source about this incident. Why? Context. It matters who kills a person (or lion), as nearly every source confirms.. -- GreenC 00:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Context was a presumption of illegal hunting. He's hunted many animals. Highlighting an illegal act is a smear and has no bearing on this hunt, the article about Cecil or anything regarding Palmer and his legal hunt that killed Cecil. Sorry, but sliming him when there is no crime charged (let alone conviction is a huge BLP problem). Cecil doesn't care about the bear hunt and the bear hunt offers no insight into Palmer's legal lion hunt. --DHeyward (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

We are reporting it the same way the majority of sources do/did. It's contextual information. Calling it a "smear" is your opinion, one not shared by the majority of reliable sources (who are not smearing). -- GreenC 01:52, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"did" is the key word. We now know that a) he committed no crime, b) he was not extradited to face a crime and c) there is no pattern of criminality related to Cecil. That's all new, overriding and more reliable than initial breaking sources. This is not a coatrack to bash Palmer especially after he's been cleared of any wrongdoing. None of the extraneous material about Palmer is relevant to Cecil. If you think Palmer's life is notable for a separate biography that includes this material, start it. But it's not relevant to Cecil the lion. --DHeyward (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

a) He was never found guilty of a crime, before or now. Nothing has changed. b) He was never extradited. Nothing has changed. "This is not a coatrack to bash Palmer" is just bad faith - the article was never a coatrack before and isn't now - nothing has changed. The article reports on what all the sources have: context about Palmer. Who killed Cecil is absolutely relevant to Cecil. If this was a person we would have absolutely have information about his killer including past history. -- GreenC 02:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. It's now clear that Zimbabwe has concluded Palmer was not involved in wrongdoing. Any information that implied he did is incorrect and needs to be removed. Even worse, information about a pattern, that is now non-existant, doesn't belong. This happens all the time in BLPs and sorry, information about a bear hunt that is unrelated to cecil, has no business in an article about Cecil. It's only purpose is false light libel trying to paint Palmer as a criminal. We don't do that. The Bear story is irrelevant. Extradition is false. Those items need to be removed as the "Cecil" article isn't a coatrack to smear Palmer.. --DHeyward (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Zimbabwe has in fact slapped him with a hunting ban in relation to the Cecil case. So action has been taken against him, it just wasn't a court trial. Samsara 03:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I just don't see how we can declare two months of intense media coverage as non-existent, see new post below. Samsara 04:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)