Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name

Was Cecil the Southern African lion always named after the man, considering how unpopular the latter is amongst a number of people in Africa? Somewhere I read that the lion was not always called that, or that his name was something of a code, similar to those of Bengal tigers like T-12. Leo1pard ( talk) 13:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Palmer's crimes

With respect to the new killing of an Altai argali, an endangered species of wild sheep in Mongolia, it's clear that Palmer is willingly looking for "rare" and "special" animals to kill. There's no need to defend his "innocence", his "just hunting" attitude, or "ignorance" of Cecil's special role and meaning to the people. I wouldn't emphasize this aspect so much. It's purpose. Perhaps to become prominent. This record and especially these photos where he's posing half naked (in close relationship to Vladimir Putin btw) show that this man has lost his brain to his penis:

Palmer posing

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8512013/Dentist-Walter-Palmer-killed-Cecil-Lion-hunting-sheep-Mongolia.html

And to the objections, wildlife defenders were only concerned with the animals but wouldn't care for the Africans, yes, they WOULD care if Palmer would start killing Africans for his portfolio ... an idea which we certainly cannot exclude ... 79.231.60.207 ( talk) 08:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTAFORUM. Also, material irrelevant to Cecil. XavierItzm ( talk) 16:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

BLP

User:XavierItzm you have been consistently attempting to delete information about the killer of Cecil from this article for years. You always get reverted, then come back months later and try again. In your latest deletion, you attempted to remove he is a recreational game hunter. Seriously? Look this information was widely reported, and it central to the notability of the killing of Cecil. The killer of Cecil is central to the notability and controversy of the killing of Cecil. We are not reporting anything that is not already widely reported in countless reliable sources. The killers otherwise normal and relatable background (a suburban doctor from the mid-west) is a big part of the controversy over the killing and why it gripped the country so, could be your neighbor sort of thing, not a Dundee or cowboy figure one might expect. The article would be significantly degraded and incomplete without information about the killer of Cecil the Lion. -- Green C 16:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Alright, under BLP we have a requirement to be conservative and not invasive to a blp's privacy. Since this is not an article on Palmer, why is his occupation and city of residence of encyclopedic value? Just because you can easily meet WP: V doesn't mean it is worth inclusion. It would be worthwhile if this were an article on Palmer, but it is not. To follow up, the new york post article is also not really about the killing of Cecil the Lion, so how does it's inclusion meet the requirement in WP: OR that the source be directly related to the topic of the article. The New York Post article is mostly about Walter Palmer, and it uses the killing of Cecil the Lion as a hook, but it doesn't really cover it as a subject. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 17:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply
This is not an article about Cecil, either. It concerns the killing, which involved the killer and killed, they are both involved. If you take things to a literal extreme of the rules without explaining how the rules apply to the specifics of the case then we are lost. I explained above that the details of Palmer are relevant to why this case was so controversial and notable. It would be a strange article indeed without it. BLP is meant to be conservative, but not to the point of undermining the central notability of the topic. -- Green C 17:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Our article doesn't discuss this background as being a big part of the controversy, in fact it doesn't even go into that at all. If that is the intent, we should be doing so explicitly and not through indirect methods such as listing a persons profession and city of residence. Since this topic is this specific killing, removing content that is not about this specific killing does not undermine its notability. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 18:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply
All the sources go into it the article reflects the sources. -- Green C 02:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
This article is not about Palmer. Palmer was never arrested nor indicted nor much less convicted in any court of law in any country with the event described in the article. Palmer is 100% innocent. Citing Palmer's profession, town, place of work, etc., is a gross violation of BLP. This is what BLP says:
* Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy
* Presumption in favor of privacy:
* People who are relatively unknown:
* Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE
* Consensus has indicated that the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified
* For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, it is a gross violation what you have done of restoring a photo of Palmer's owned business, together with the town and state. XavierItzm ( talk) 04:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The article never says Palmer is guilty. He is the person who killed Cecil the lion, the topic of this article, a quite controversial topic. To suggest we can have an article about the killing of Cecil, without discussing the killer of Cecil, is nonsensical and would turn the article into a farce. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE says "articles [can] contain material on people who are not well known" but "only material relevant to the person's notability". His notability is related to the killing of Cecil. Every source that discussed the killing of Cecil gives basic background information about Palmer at the time of the killing, because it is relevant to the larger controversy the killing provoked, over who are modern big game hunters, why do they do it, should they be stopped, etc.. -- Green C 05:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
His notability is related to kililng Cecil, but the content we are challenging is not related to the killing of Cecil so why is it in this article? That a source brings something up does not mean it is worthy of inclusion in any particular article. You aren't providing relevant specifics as to why his profession and city of residence, as well as content about a different hunt, is proper in this article. If we don't get any specifics I'm going to remove this again on BLP grounds, as OR for the hunt, and general privacy BLP for the profession and city of residence. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 13:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
I agree that his location may have privacy implications. However, his occupation is referred to elsewhere in the article and has no privacy implications, and his further shooting is relevant as it goes to habituation and demonstrates a lack of contrition. That incident is also cited to the Cecil incident, so a relationship has been established by sources. I am restoring the further shooting per WP:QUO; as long-standing content, consensus to remove should be evident before deletion. WWGB ( talk) 04:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Why is habituation and lack of contrition important? Is the intent to besmirch his character? Per WP: OR the requirement is directly related to the topic of the article, not that there is a relationship. The article doesn't go into the shooting in any detail and really just uses it as a hook to talk about Palmer's other hunting activities. That's not directly related to the killing. Further the source is the New York Post, which we consider a tabloid at WP: RSP, which really makes it not a suitable source for BLP content. I am removing this per WP: QUO (Specifically "except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles") and asserting that this should not be restored unless it becomes compliant with BLP, per WP: BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Specifically, we would need to be including this for encyclopedic reasons and not to besmirch the character of the BLP, we need make sure that the source is directly about the killing, and not just using it as a hook, and finally we would need a high quality source and not a tabloid. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 11:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
However, his occupation is referred to elsewhere in the article and has no privacy implications ---this is unacceptable. We are talking wp:BLP here. Of an innocent person. One editor is justifying insertion of the innocent's profession on the fact the article elsewhere violates the privacy of a WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, to continue violating the innocent's privacy. Also, alleging that because wrongful WP:BLP content has been there for a while it should continue to remain is simply sad. XavierItzm ( talk) 03:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply
A search on Walter Palmer hunter brings up 100s of articles, and the majority of them say "Dentist" in the title, in fact many don't even give his name, just "Dentist", or "MN Dentist" or some variant. This is trivial to document and I'm afraid it would be overwhelming in a by-the-pound sort of way. It is, according to the sources, "relevant the person's notability" according to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.
The next problem is Palmer is not a low profile individual. According to WP:LPI, a highprofile individual "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication". According to this 2015 CNN article, Palmer in fact "kept a low profile during the [first] six weeks", but then he "broke his silence in an interview with The Associated Press". He is now high profile because he sought public attention, the definition of high profile. -- Green C 04:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply
I see nothing in WP:BLPPRIVACY which suggests that a person's occupation is confidential, especially since that occupation has been publicly discussed by its holder, [1] and published in multiple reliable sources. WWGB ( talk) 05:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Just because something easily meets WP: V doesn't mean we should include it in our article. Nor that we are not further violating a persons privacy by doing so. To follow up with WP: LPI, you didn't quote the full section. You don't have to just give an interview, it has to be as a "media Personality", "Expert" or other notable commentator. The interview is pretty obviously about his experiences as a victim of the harassment that came towards him. Not as a media personality, expert, or commentator, but a victim. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 13:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
He was either a low or high profile individual at the time of the media appearance, at which time he was not charged with a crime nor was anyone else charged with a crime against him - his belief in victimhood was his own assertion, he was using the press to "promote". He was intentionally using the press, "breaking his silence", not a passive subject of the press. LPI says "or some other ostensibly notable commentator" (in this sense "ostensibly notable" does not mean WP:NOTE). There is no one more notable to comment on this topic than Palmer himself. -- Green C 16:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
He might be notable, but he was not a commentator. A commentator is a third party to the event who is commenting on the event. He wasn't a third party, he was the recipient of the harassment and vandalism directed at him. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 13:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply
That makes no sense - he literally asked/consented to be put on the news, he "broke his silence". Why? To tell his side of the story to the press and public, he used the press for his own end. This is not what low profile people do, by definition. Your cherry picking examples from the guideline ("commentator") missing the bigger picture of how he used the press to portray himself as a victim. -- Green C 04:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Killing_of_Cecil_the_lion&oldid=1204163615"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name

Was Cecil the Southern African lion always named after the man, considering how unpopular the latter is amongst a number of people in Africa? Somewhere I read that the lion was not always called that, or that his name was something of a code, similar to those of Bengal tigers like T-12. Leo1pard ( talk) 13:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Palmer's crimes

With respect to the new killing of an Altai argali, an endangered species of wild sheep in Mongolia, it's clear that Palmer is willingly looking for "rare" and "special" animals to kill. There's no need to defend his "innocence", his "just hunting" attitude, or "ignorance" of Cecil's special role and meaning to the people. I wouldn't emphasize this aspect so much. It's purpose. Perhaps to become prominent. This record and especially these photos where he's posing half naked (in close relationship to Vladimir Putin btw) show that this man has lost his brain to his penis:

Palmer posing

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8512013/Dentist-Walter-Palmer-killed-Cecil-Lion-hunting-sheep-Mongolia.html

And to the objections, wildlife defenders were only concerned with the animals but wouldn't care for the Africans, yes, they WOULD care if Palmer would start killing Africans for his portfolio ... an idea which we certainly cannot exclude ... 79.231.60.207 ( talk) 08:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:NOTAFORUM. Also, material irrelevant to Cecil. XavierItzm ( talk) 16:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC) reply

BLP

User:XavierItzm you have been consistently attempting to delete information about the killer of Cecil from this article for years. You always get reverted, then come back months later and try again. In your latest deletion, you attempted to remove he is a recreational game hunter. Seriously? Look this information was widely reported, and it central to the notability of the killing of Cecil. The killer of Cecil is central to the notability and controversy of the killing of Cecil. We are not reporting anything that is not already widely reported in countless reliable sources. The killers otherwise normal and relatable background (a suburban doctor from the mid-west) is a big part of the controversy over the killing and why it gripped the country so, could be your neighbor sort of thing, not a Dundee or cowboy figure one might expect. The article would be significantly degraded and incomplete without information about the killer of Cecil the Lion. -- Green C 16:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Alright, under BLP we have a requirement to be conservative and not invasive to a blp's privacy. Since this is not an article on Palmer, why is his occupation and city of residence of encyclopedic value? Just because you can easily meet WP: V doesn't mean it is worth inclusion. It would be worthwhile if this were an article on Palmer, but it is not. To follow up, the new york post article is also not really about the killing of Cecil the Lion, so how does it's inclusion meet the requirement in WP: OR that the source be directly related to the topic of the article. The New York Post article is mostly about Walter Palmer, and it uses the killing of Cecil the Lion as a hook, but it doesn't really cover it as a subject. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 17:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply
This is not an article about Cecil, either. It concerns the killing, which involved the killer and killed, they are both involved. If you take things to a literal extreme of the rules without explaining how the rules apply to the specifics of the case then we are lost. I explained above that the details of Palmer are relevant to why this case was so controversial and notable. It would be a strange article indeed without it. BLP is meant to be conservative, but not to the point of undermining the central notability of the topic. -- Green C 17:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Our article doesn't discuss this background as being a big part of the controversy, in fact it doesn't even go into that at all. If that is the intent, we should be doing so explicitly and not through indirect methods such as listing a persons profession and city of residence. Since this topic is this specific killing, removing content that is not about this specific killing does not undermine its notability. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 18:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC) reply
All the sources go into it the article reflects the sources. -- Green C 02:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
This article is not about Palmer. Palmer was never arrested nor indicted nor much less convicted in any court of law in any country with the event described in the article. Palmer is 100% innocent. Citing Palmer's profession, town, place of work, etc., is a gross violation of BLP. This is what BLP says:
* Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy
* Presumption in favor of privacy:
* People who are relatively unknown:
* Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE
* Consensus has indicated that the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified
* For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
Per WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, it is a gross violation what you have done of restoring a photo of Palmer's owned business, together with the town and state. XavierItzm ( talk) 04:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
The article never says Palmer is guilty. He is the person who killed Cecil the lion, the topic of this article, a quite controversial topic. To suggest we can have an article about the killing of Cecil, without discussing the killer of Cecil, is nonsensical and would turn the article into a farce. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE says "articles [can] contain material on people who are not well known" but "only material relevant to the person's notability". His notability is related to the killing of Cecil. Every source that discussed the killing of Cecil gives basic background information about Palmer at the time of the killing, because it is relevant to the larger controversy the killing provoked, over who are modern big game hunters, why do they do it, should they be stopped, etc.. -- Green C 05:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
His notability is related to kililng Cecil, but the content we are challenging is not related to the killing of Cecil so why is it in this article? That a source brings something up does not mean it is worthy of inclusion in any particular article. You aren't providing relevant specifics as to why his profession and city of residence, as well as content about a different hunt, is proper in this article. If we don't get any specifics I'm going to remove this again on BLP grounds, as OR for the hunt, and general privacy BLP for the profession and city of residence. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 13:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply
I agree that his location may have privacy implications. However, his occupation is referred to elsewhere in the article and has no privacy implications, and his further shooting is relevant as it goes to habituation and demonstrates a lack of contrition. That incident is also cited to the Cecil incident, so a relationship has been established by sources. I am restoring the further shooting per WP:QUO; as long-standing content, consensus to remove should be evident before deletion. WWGB ( talk) 04:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Why is habituation and lack of contrition important? Is the intent to besmirch his character? Per WP: OR the requirement is directly related to the topic of the article, not that there is a relationship. The article doesn't go into the shooting in any detail and really just uses it as a hook to talk about Palmer's other hunting activities. That's not directly related to the killing. Further the source is the New York Post, which we consider a tabloid at WP: RSP, which really makes it not a suitable source for BLP content. I am removing this per WP: QUO (Specifically "except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles") and asserting that this should not be restored unless it becomes compliant with BLP, per WP: BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Specifically, we would need to be including this for encyclopedic reasons and not to besmirch the character of the BLP, we need make sure that the source is directly about the killing, and not just using it as a hook, and finally we would need a high quality source and not a tabloid. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 11:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply
However, his occupation is referred to elsewhere in the article and has no privacy implications ---this is unacceptable. We are talking wp:BLP here. Of an innocent person. One editor is justifying insertion of the innocent's profession on the fact the article elsewhere violates the privacy of a WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, to continue violating the innocent's privacy. Also, alleging that because wrongful WP:BLP content has been there for a while it should continue to remain is simply sad. XavierItzm ( talk) 03:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply
A search on Walter Palmer hunter brings up 100s of articles, and the majority of them say "Dentist" in the title, in fact many don't even give his name, just "Dentist", or "MN Dentist" or some variant. This is trivial to document and I'm afraid it would be overwhelming in a by-the-pound sort of way. It is, according to the sources, "relevant the person's notability" according to WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.
The next problem is Palmer is not a low profile individual. According to WP:LPI, a highprofile individual "Has given one or more scheduled interviews to a notable publication". According to this 2015 CNN article, Palmer in fact "kept a low profile during the [first] six weeks", but then he "broke his silence in an interview with The Associated Press". He is now high profile because he sought public attention, the definition of high profile. -- Green C 04:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply
I see nothing in WP:BLPPRIVACY which suggests that a person's occupation is confidential, especially since that occupation has been publicly discussed by its holder, [1] and published in multiple reliable sources. WWGB ( talk) 05:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Just because something easily meets WP: V doesn't mean we should include it in our article. Nor that we are not further violating a persons privacy by doing so. To follow up with WP: LPI, you didn't quote the full section. You don't have to just give an interview, it has to be as a "media Personality", "Expert" or other notable commentator. The interview is pretty obviously about his experiences as a victim of the harassment that came towards him. Not as a media personality, expert, or commentator, but a victim. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 13:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
He was either a low or high profile individual at the time of the media appearance, at which time he was not charged with a crime nor was anyone else charged with a crime against him - his belief in victimhood was his own assertion, he was using the press to "promote". He was intentionally using the press, "breaking his silence", not a passive subject of the press. LPI says "or some other ostensibly notable commentator" (in this sense "ostensibly notable" does not mean WP:NOTE). There is no one more notable to comment on this topic than Palmer himself. -- Green C 16:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC) reply
He might be notable, but he was not a commentator. A commentator is a third party to the event who is commenting on the event. He wasn't a third party, he was the recipient of the harassment and vandalism directed at him. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 13:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC) reply
That makes no sense - he literally asked/consented to be put on the news, he "broke his silence". Why? To tell his side of the story to the press and public, he used the press for his own end. This is not what low profile people do, by definition. Your cherry picking examples from the guideline ("commentator") missing the bigger picture of how he used the press to portray himself as a victim. -- Green C 04:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Killing_of_Cecil_the_lion&oldid=1204163615"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE