Talk:Killing of Cecil the lion

Requested move 14 October 2015

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

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

---

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

• support as nom Gaijin42 (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. The article began as "Killing of Cecil the Lion". didn't it? But was moved, because the notability of Cecil, prior to his death, was established? It seems unlikely that Cecil would get his own article alongside this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

it was a renegade move with no consensus discussion to support it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Despite claims of Cecil's notoriety, none ever materialized. A one person organization agendaneered the social media campaign which died a month or so after cecil. The death was a notable social campaign but the lion was not notable as evidenced by the articles devotion to facts unrelated to its life. --18:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DHeyward (talk • contribs)

  Are you allowed to use a loaded word like "agendaneered" here, without a permit!? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Per WP:NOTABILITY "Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." It seems obvious to me that the death of Cecil is notable given the media coverage, and Cecil is notable by proxy since it was his death, and there is not enough meaningful sources outside the common intersection of those two topics to support separate articles. Therefore this page, regardless of title, is the appropriate place for noteworthy and reliably sourced material on either Cecil or his death. Rhoark (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Cecil may be indipendantly notable, but if so it is not due to his death. WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. In any case, my point about this move is that there is a lot of information in this article clearly not about the lion itself, but about the event. Therefore the article should move to be about the event. If someone can find encyclopedic well sourced information about cecil, I don't think anyone would object to its inclusion. But if this article stays as a "BLP" then the information not about cecil itself should be removed. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: Can you just confirm that you've read clause 3 of BLP1E? If you did, can you explain how the events were not significant, or Palmer role not substantial or well-documented? Thanks - I just think the policies we cite should actually fit the case we're talking about. Samsara 20:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Palmer's role in the event is substantial. But this article (as named) is not about the event. Its about the lion. The amount we should talk about Palmer on an event (death of) article, is much greater than we should talk about palmer on a "cecil" article. In any case, I am not saying we can't have an article about cecil. as I have said multiple times the content we have now is appropriate for an event article. Therefore we should make this be an event article. If we do or do not want a separate cecil article is an entirely different question. If this remains a "blp" article, then the content which is inappropriate for a blp (tangental biographical details about people other than cecil. effects on conservation,criminal investigations, etc) should be removed. I would rather they be WP:PRESERVEed, so I support renaming this article. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• support The main topic of the article is the death. Dimadick (talk) 20:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support The notability of Cecil before the killing is dubious. Change allows a closer scrutiny of the event and those involved. The killer and the killed are equal figures of concern in a "Death of" article. -- GreenC 03:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• prefer restoration of Killing of Cecil the lion but Death of Cecil the lion is acceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose because the proposed name is too long. I would support a rename to Cecil the lion. Cheers! ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 03:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per GreenC, and the BLP concerns associated with a greater emphasis on Palmer. In fact, it was ably demonstrated in previous discussions that Cecil was notable even before his death (though the article had not been created); he is certainly notable now. StAnselm (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Before we do this, can we actually establish that anyone tried to determine whether there is material in RS that shows Cecil's notability prior to his death? By "tried", I mean tried HARD, because it's really difficult now to cut through the Google fog (you may credit or vilify me for that coinage) created after his demise. Samsara 04:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the main Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killing of Cecil the lion there was supposedly a source that asserted notability within the park, but no actual sources were provided that I could tell. I recall other sources quoting people in Zimbabwe saying they had never heard of the lion. -- GreenC 04:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there were a number of "let's hear some local voices" type pieces published at that time. It's not surprising that the locals haven't heard of the lion, as they have little reason to visit the park. They encounter many of the same animals around their villages, many of them can't afford a ticket to the park, and they're still rather afraid of lions for the few times that one does go roaming, or because their grandparents can still remember when lions were a major threat to be heeded. Cecil is more likely to feature in a first world research paper and/or documentary. That he was popular with tourists, I'm willing to believe. For some time he and his pride seem to have inhabited a private concession (or the territory overlapped it), so at that time even fewer people would have been able to encounter him. I do remember reading a piece somewhere - prior to the breaking of the story of his death - about how unusual it is that two males who each have their own pride would occasionally join up and even allow their females to mate with the other guy. That's why Jericho won't kill the cubs. Obviously, none of this matters until I can find that source again, which may be never, given the Google fog. Samsara 17:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• support The main topic of the article is the death of a previously very little known lion. I have carefully read through the refs and TP (including archived TPs and refs that have now been removed) and it is clear that the lion was a few times cited in marketing brochures as one of the attractions in this one park where most visitors are foreigners. The lion was not famous by any stretch of the imagination and the only notorious thing about it is that Western social media and mainstream media made a mountain out of a perfectly legal molehill. The article should be entitled "Death of Cecil the Lion" or "Summer 2015 Cecil the Lion Media-driven Hysteria." XavierItzm (talk) 08:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it was "media-driven" - the media presented a fluff piece and social media turned went wild with social media vigilantism cause i can show how much i care about the environment by twitting vitriol from my 6th smart phone full of rare earth metals and toxins while I drive my SUV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support, most of the interest in the (living) lion became apparent only after it was killed. The main basis of notability is the killing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom and other comments above. The article is primarily about the death of the lion and not the lion itself. —  AjaxSmack  00:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The article is about his death. Minor4th 01:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

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

• Oppose. This is silly. It originates out of WP:BIO1E concerns, and not wanting to have an event article creep into a full biography of a non-notable person. The subject is not a person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The normal purpose and effect of such a change, from "X" to "Death/killing/murder of X", is to limit the scope of coverage of X of anything not directly related to the Death/killing/murder, even if supported by sources. This is desirable where X is a private individual person, and completing the biography of X's private life, family, friends, workplace amounts to an invasion of privacy of associates of X. This is why BLP1E and BIO1E exist. This proposal, like the similar but failed attempt with Marius the giraffe, would be to broaden privacy concerns to animals. That is just silly. If Cecil's family tree is elucidated, if a familial relationship with Jericho is discovered (they are not "blood brothers" [1], but were they cubs in the same pride?), this article is the place to cover it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. There's a chance that he's related to Aslan also, but we don't title articles on speculation. When the Aslan bloodline is supported and notability of the individual becomes separate from the event, we fork off a biography. Cecil doesn't have a notable biography beyond this single event. --DHeyward (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Sourceable genetics information on the relationship of Cecil to the new pride leader who did or did not protect Cecil's cubs would be most appropriately added to this article. Cecil the lion is now a notable subject and information directly related to Cecil does not require independent testing of notability, as it would on the higher threshold associated with living people.

The ongoing coverage is evidence of the late Cecil's posthumous notability. It is established, and does not need to be established for every aspect of Cecil. Your mention of Aslan is a red herring as Aslan is an eternal deity without family bloodlines, but discover of relationship between Cecil and Kimba or Simba would be very interesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• OPPOSE. It's not silly and I understand what the editors are noting above. Still and all, it's a needless imposition of rules when it's more useful and WP:TERSE to just leave the article here. Further, as OP admits, there is room to grow the article into greater coverage of Cecil's popularity in life in a way that isn't possible for other WP:BIO1E articles. Let's just leave it here rather than moving it back in four months after someone expands the section on his life. Along with an editor above, though, I agree Cecil the lion is a better treatment of the name, though. — LlywelynII 22:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• So many conflicting arguments here, am getting quite cross-eyed. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Initial confusion about Jericho's fate - noteworthy?

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

I don't see why not. It was part of the trigger-finger hysteria around Cecil's death, showing how the press and public were fed confirmation biases. A history would be incomplete without. -- GreenC 19:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

why would we include an event that didnt happen to something that is not the subject of this article? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It was reported in relation to whether or not Cecil's cubs would be killed (well, partly). Samsara 21:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the head of an organization that only consists of him said in alternate fashion that a) jericho was a rival lion b) jericho would kill cecil's cubs d) jericho was Cecil's brother and e) jericho was killed by poachers. All those statments were made by the same person and press repeated them until the experts at Oxford said he was full of shiat. He's never been right. All his crap should be left out of the article. -DHeyward (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think the "initial confusion" is noteworthy, but there is clear newspaper ongoing interest in Jericho and his or Cecil's cubs. Individual meals are reported.[2] Newspapers have separately reported "not blood brothers" and from the same pride. If from the same pride, they probably have the same father, and if different mothers, the different mothers would be related. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)\

Oxford has confirmed in many places that Cecil and Jericho are unrelated. They formed a coalition where they may not consider cubs to be outside the coalition but there is no evidence that Cecil and Jericho have a mother/pride or father in common. It is not unusual for unrelated male lions to form coalitions. Jericho and Cecil do no not share a mother or father in common. --DHeyward (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

U of Oxford has confirmed? Where? Can you point to a reliable source? I tried, moderately, and failed to find. Some have newspapers "said" they are related(cubs from same pride)/unrelated, without sign of really knowing, probably guesswork. I am not trying to argue, but think it is slightly interesting, but more-so if there were real evidence (known genealogies or DNA testing). If it is just tabloid journalist made up fact-filler, then it is not interesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Here [3]. From the guy that put tracking collars on them Dr. Andrew J. Loveridge, who helps run the research project in Hwange that's part of the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit in Oxford's Department of Zoology..."Cecil and Jericho are not brothers, but male lions frequently form coalitions with unrelated males in order to successfully hold territories." Cecil did have a brother that was killed years ago when they were staking out territory. It wasn't Jericho, though. All of the nonsense came from the "Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force" which seems to be a single person, Johnny Rodrigues. That person is not allowed in the park. --DHeyward (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that, but was hoping for something better, something better than their facebook posts or a response to a journalist's call. I read the statement as meaning that they formed a coalition after meeting as adults. This does not mean that they had not previously known each other. Part of the curiosity goes to how far do the researchers track individuals and family groups. For reliable sourcing, I think that can be found here, http://www.wildcru.org/ (a unit of http://www.zoo.ox.ac.uk/department-zoology ?), and newspapers and npr.org are suitable for use has notability aka wider-interest indicators but less so as reliable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Archiving links

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

Thanks Tenebrae - I'm surprised we don't seem to have a bot for this. Samsara 00:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's incredibly difficult for reasons I won't get into here. Many have tried. More info at WP:Link rot. -- GreenC 00:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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

Wow. What a disaster that would be if WebCitation went dark. I pray this only means it will stop accepting new cites but will retain those already there, but that may only be wishful thinking on my part. Wow. Thank you for the head's up. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. A search suggests it may be stale info, see here:

"The service is currently in financial trouble. According to the WebCite homepage as of February 2013, WebCite will stop accepting new submissions by the end of 2013, "unless we reach our fundraising goals to modernize and expand this service."

Presume they met their goal as it's 2015 and no new notice about financial trouble on the homepage. There is also a claim WebCite feeds its content to Internet Archive: "WebCite® feeds its content to digital preservation partners such as libraries and the Internet Archive (archive.org)." No idea how much or how to access it through Internet Archive. -- GreenC 00:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly the WMF needs to set up servers of its own for this purpose. Samsara 00:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the 2013 proposal for a sister project called "WebCite". I'm not sure what happened, I think webcitation.org may be receiving some money from WMF, and Internet Archive is crawling new Wikipedia pages and archiving external links found there (but no bot is doing the reverse, adding the IA links to the Wikipedia page). -- GreenC 00:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

[4] Samsara 01:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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)