Talk:Woody Minnich

Smuggling charges

Creating this space to discuss Woody's smuggling charges.

I don't believe his smuggling charges, while relevant to his cactus business, should be included on Wikipedia. That's for multiple reasons. First, they happened early in his career. Second, they do not contribute to his notability.

Today Woody is a beloved member of the cactus community and an internationally recognized expert, he is not known for being a smuggler, and a mistake from 40+ years ago should not stain his page while he has made innumerable positive contributions since then.

This is a Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and also a Wikipedia:NFP. The latter includes:

> In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability

and

> Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures. Sonovawolf (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The latter article also states the following:

> More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all.

Based on the tone of the original article as well as your characterization of the subject as a "beloved member" and his actions as "a mistake from 40+ years should not stain his page", I am concerned about potential bias in your editing of the article.

The two additions (record of conviction for trafficking, validity of the name Mammillaria minnichii) and correction (the subject's position as CSSA President) were properly referenced using non-biased sources. As a conservation biologist and plant ecologist, I deem the additions were appropriate and relevant to the subject's notability as "an American field explorer, photographer, grower, and lecturer". I am therefore reverting your changes. Mdpillet (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me get to your points one by one:

1. The subject's position as CSSA President
2. Validity of the name Mammillaria minnichii
3. Record of conviction for trafficking (and bias)

1) The subject's position as CSSA President

I don't see why it's worth adding that "While it has been claimed he was President of the CSSA, this contradicts CSSA records". We don't have proof he's claiming that he was CSSA president while he wasn't, just that one journalist said he was, and is clearly wrong. This is not a page about the journalist, this is a page about Minnich. Minnich wasn't president of CSSA, so the page should not mention it.

2) Validity of the name Mammillaria minnichii

Similarly, I don't think it's worth mentioning that "Mammillaria minnichii has not been validly published in the scientific literature, and is not found in any biodiversity databases". When participating in contests, Minnich clearly labels Mammillaria minnichii as N.N. (Naked Name). That's why I removed it. The original information is not accurate, and I don't see a point in adding inaccurate information AND adding more text to label it as inaccurate. This whole paragraph could go away:

> During his trips he claims to have discovered three major species of Mammillaria, including Mammillaria minnichii, found in Oaxaca, Mexico and named after him.[2] However, the name Mammillaria minnichii has not been validly published in the scientific literature, and is not found in any biodiversity databases (e.g. Plants of the World Online).

3) Record of conviction for trafficking (and bias)

I'm not opposed to keeping the record of conviction of trafficking, but:

1. Because this is a BLP we should be careful about adding strongly negative information, especially about something that happened once a long time ago and hasn't happened since. While the trafficking is relevant to Minnich being a field explorer, it's not why he's notable.
2. If you want to write about the trafficking charges, it seems also fair to talk about the "recent articles about his views on poaching and conservation" that the other user mentioned, even just to contextualize his claims and his experience as a trafficker.

Overall, we should keep in mind that Wikipedia provides so much exposure that any negative information that has not been properly contextualized can create real-world harm for a living person. Sonovawolf (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

1) The text properly states that "it has been claimed", not that it was claimed by the subject. The claim is publicly promulgated by the Pacific Standard and The Guardian articles. "While it has been claimed he was President of the CSSA, this contradicts CSSA records" questions the validity of this widely available information. As the claim was not made by the subject, this does not affect the neutrality of the article. Content removal to avoid pointing out this inconsistency is not a proper editorial decision.

2) Similarly, the subject's claim of discovery of three species including Mammillaria minnichii is public record, including in an article in the LA Times. I am not able to find information on the other two species. The lack of validity of M. minnichii does not undo the subject's claims that it was discovered by him and named after him. Again, content removal is not the proper solution. As you wrote the original article, you felt it was relevant to include this information. Yet, you were apparently aware it is a nomen nudum. Why remove this segment now rather than just add the current status of this name?

3) Addition of this information provides a more complete biographical picture. The tone is neutral, and the information is factual and properly referenced. As you agree, this information is relevant. The information also contributes to his notability within the field and the public, as, in part, indicated by LA Times articles.

Additional content that discusses the subject's recent views on conservation would absolutely be valuable and contribute to a more complete article, and I encourage you to add it. Reporting on publicly and legally available information does not in and of itself create real-world harm. Mdpillet (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

1. I'm not questioning the neutrality, but the importance of the information. While two news articles may have attributed him a title he hasn't held, it is encouraged not to dispute every bit of incorrect information out there. Whether he was president of CSSA or not is not a significant enough topic of discussion to be considered a dispute worth adding to his bio. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth: > Even the most reliable sources commit mistakes from time to time, such as misspelling a name or getting some detail wrong. Such mistakes, when found, should be ignored, and not be employed to describe a non-existent dispute.
2. Initially, the lack of information about the other two species made me wary of talking about it at all, but you are right that his claim is important to his bio, I will add it again.
3. While the tone is neutral and the information is factual, it is also important to provide due weight and a balanced perspective especially, once again, if it's a BLP. As it stands today, being at the end of his "contributions", without further contextualization on whether the trafficking has been relevant to the rest of his career, and with quite a lot of detail, it carries undue weight. I'll wait for the other user to add more information, or add it myself if that does not materialize.

Regarding my approach:

> Based on the tone of the original article as well as your characterization of the subject as a "beloved member" […], I am concerned about potential bias in your editing of the article.

> As you agree, this information is relevant.

> You felt it was relevant to include this information. Yet, you were apparently aware it is a nomen nudum.

The tone of the original article has not been altered, information has only been added. "Beloved member" was used to explain his reputation and notability (in the Talk page, not the article) and to explain why the smuggling charges may have carried undue weight as they stood.

Overall, you are putting a lot of words in my mouth. I don't have any skin in the game in painting a more positive picture of Minnich. If anything, as a conservation biologist you may have more beef with him than I have praise. Because I'm fairly new to editing Wilkipedia—as you also seem to be—I've been double-checking some of my approach thanks to the folks over at the Wikipedia Discord (which you are welcome to join!). Sonovawolf (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Sonovawolf, you are doing far too much editorializing and your bias is readily apparent. I'll be reverting your most recent edits. If you insist on changing them back again I'll be elevating this to the wikipedia administrators. John Bailey Owen (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

You speak about bias but you don't point out how the information as it stands is false or misleading.

I believe I've provided ample evidence citing sources and also guidelines from Wikipedia itself. Moreover, I've made sure not to rely on my judgement alone, and asked for help in the Discord. I cannot say the same for you.

Because this is a BLP I believe extra caution is warranted. Please do elevate this to the administrators. Sonovawolf (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

I added back the mention of Mammillaria minnichii and the poaching charges, also contextualized the latter a bit more. Let me know if you think this version is misleading or not factual. Sonovawolf (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Smuggling conviction

I've added the information about Woody's conviction. Woody is notable because of his work with succulents, and his conviction for poaching succulents is clearly relevant. This is particularly true because in recent years he has spoken publicly about conservation and poaching. There are recent articles about his views on poaching and conservation that anyone else can add. None of this is defamatory, it's all in the public record. John Bailey Owen (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Johnnydowns, I believe mentioning the poaching charges isn't useful. It is not why Woody is notable, and as a living person we should be careful about adding a stain like this to his biography.

While poaching is a big topic today due to the degradation of cacti's natural habitat and their rise in popularity among collectors, the poaching happened 40+ years ago and has not happened again since.

Could you:

1. Provide a reference for the assertion that he was smuggling gila monsters?
2. Provide a reference for Woody's talks on conservation efforts and poaching?

Putting the poaching in context with something like #2 would help in making it feel like the poaching that happened once half a century ago is still relevant today. Sonovawolf (talk) 04:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes I see the post above. I can add extra citations and details about the poaching and the sting operation. I'll do that in the next couple of days.

Feel free to raise any of your concerns with admins. Or, if you feel the need to delete the section on poaching again, I'll do so myself. John Bailey Owen (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Given the other discussion above, I've added them back in. Sonovawolf (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)