Jump to content

Talk:Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 198.52.130.137 (talk) at 01:34, 23 September 2020 (→‎Keep? - Merge? - Delete? discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reaction

---Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep? - Merge? - Delete? discussion

Is an article like this really necessary, Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist didn't have specific articles on their deaths, and this one just repeats info from Ruth Bader Ginsburg Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I say let's let the article expand for a while and see what happens. I'd rather not see a tag slapped on this from the start. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not convinced on it's necessity. I'm not a deletionist, but this just seems redundant. QoopyQoopy (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing here not in the bio are the WP:NOTNEWS memorial comments. Anything substantive should be in the bio in a "Legacy" section.—Bagumba (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's probably necessary. There is already significant coverage about the significance of this death at this time. It's more than just coverage of her. It's coverage of the what the fallout already is and may be. —valereee (talk) 18:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, won't that be captured at 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy?—Bagumba (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba, maybe...the redirect seems odd, for sure. I would think your title would be a lot more precise. There's always going to be a next vacancy/nomination. —valereee (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, I just blindly copied the "main" link that was in the article. —Bagumba (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikpedians, please, let's not be driven by feverish recentism. Death comes to all notable people, very few of them warrant a devoted article. I think this should be tactfully merged to the main article, but if it remains it should not be clogged with every tribute, tweet, or run-of-the-mill announcements. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and does not need to be a play-by-play of details that won't matter in 2 months or 20 years. Think of the big picture. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Animalparty, fwiw, I don't think the issue is tributes, tweets, run-of-the-mill announcements. IMO it's about the significance of the event. As Bagumba points out, it may be better covered at 2020 US Supreme Court Vacancy; I'm neutral on that. I do think it's worth covering somewhere. —valereee (talk) 21:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In my limited experience, Death of ... articles tend to focus on the death itself and investigations/legal proceedings around it, particularly if lots of details about it are known, details are contested or the proceedings are highly publicized. I doubt we're ever going to learn much about exactly how she died, and even if we did that wouldn't be that notable. I'd suggest merging this article into the Ginsburg or Court Vacancy article. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. See Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher and Death of Nelson Mandela. This is a one that will require a separate article. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do any other U.S. Supreme Court Justices have a "Death of..." article on Wikipedia? This seems like a completely unnecessary article to me. I think the useful content in this article should just be merged into her main biography article. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that death of... articles focus on the death itself. If the death is contested or in mysterious circumstances then this article may later serve a purpose but as the story and news develop there is not yet good reason to stop this page from growing. I think in the coming weeks or months this page and Ginsburg's main page will take the form of Ted Kennedy and have the importance of her death noted but not formed into an article separately. User:koalafied1 06:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agree that this content can be split between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy (which itself should eventually be renamed/merged into [[X Supreme Court nomination]]).--Pokelova (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not necessary. I don't know who thought this article was a good idea. There is nothing unique or controversial about her death. I will put in a request for deletion. The overwhelming majority of the comments here appear supportive unless I've missed some. MartinezMD (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge – There is a lot about her death we have not yet covered. She is also expected to lie in repose at the Supreme Court. There are still memorials and services.
  • Oppose merge With all due respect, this article shouldn't be merged into the Ruth Bader Ginsburg's main article; Ginsburg's death has spiraled into a massive political controversy. It might need to be renamed but the article itself is necessary. R. J. Dockery (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The main article does not even come close to covering her life in full. The § Litigation and advocacy is wholly inadequate. (That section itself would require its own article.) The § U.S. Court of Appeals section supposedly covering 13 years is wholly inadequate. If we merge this into the main article, we will put an undue weight on her death in that article. We will damage that GA to a point that on its eventual move to FA, this will have to be split anyway. The main article is at 38955 and that is without the expansion I plan to do to the sections I have mentioned and a new section on her dissents that will be necessary. This article is already at 6939 and likely to double. It doesn't take a crystal ball to know that.
Consider for comparison the Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher and Death of Nelson Mandela. Should those be merged? Both in advanced age and not unexpected deaths. I am not saying we do this with every notable person (for example John Lewis). However, some will require a separate page to deal will properly. Besides an article on her death, Ginsburg would require about half a dozen separate articles to cover life and career properly. Please do not overburden the main article. This not recenticism. George Washington has several dozen articles about him. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:29, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support merge: nobody could deny Justice Ginsburg's importance in American politics, however this article's importance is grossly over-exaggerated. The death of Justice Scalia caused what I would argue is a similar political impact on the 2016 SCOTUS vacancy and subsequent election, yet he never had a separate article on his death because he died in quite a similar fashion to virtually every Supreme Court justice in history, some with quite equal influence as Ginsburg. Other figures who died of natural causes such as Thatcher and Mandela had their own articles because they were some of the most influential people of the century. As stated previously, the article regarding the 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy already covers the political impact that her death has had on the current American political climate, and, much like all previous justices, any information directly regarding her death can be covered in the death and legacy sections of her main article. It's not surprising that people would want to create separate articles to account for and detail the constant bombardment of developments, however, this is an encyclopedia, and I would argue that if we already have a section in a bio article detailing the circumstances of and reactions to a natural death, and another article detailing the further impact of the death beyond the person themselves, why another one seemingly just for extra blue links? GN-z11 ☎ ★ 18:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ginsburg was one "of the most influential people of the [past] century", before she was even a justice. Half the population of the US, and perhaps of the world, has benefited from her work on Reed v. Reed, Frontiero v. Richardson, and Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld. Her majority opinion in United States v. Virginia was a major precedent that ended the court's allowance of sex discrimination for centuries. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but saying she was one "of the most influential people of the century" is a bit of an exaggeration in my opinion. As crucial as she was in the US, her impact in the rest of the world was much more modest. Vpab15 (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are many issues being conflated here. The article should really be titled Political effects of the Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Her death is about as ordinary and routine as one can be. Celebrity deaths warrant a separate page when the deaths themselves are notable separate from the celebrity. Examples include Death of Jeffrey Epstein, The Day the Music Died, Death of Muammar Gaddafi, etc. KidAd talk 19:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Political effects of the Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is fails CONCISE. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. I suggested the hypothetical title only because it more accurately communicates the nature of the article. No such form of this article should exist or have ever existed. It should me merged, redirected, or outright deleted as soon as possible. KidAd talk 19:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher. I wish I could delete the section on succession but a side glance at that is also necessary. And as for as soon as possible, why? What is the rush? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You only utilize WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when it suits you. You reference the Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher to make a point that the death of a public figure can warrant a WP:FORK even when the death itself is non-notable, but shrug off the death of John Lewis because The world is not fair. There is a flaw in that logic. KidAd talk 20:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you started an article about the death of Lewis and properly sourced it. I would not oppose. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffeeandcrumbs: John Lewis' work in the civil rights movement helped virtually every African-American alive today, and has been one of the pioneers of ending the discrimination of Black people worldwide. Yet, we haven't created an article on his death because... it wasn't necessary. His article had plenty of space to cover both his death, funeral, and reactions to his passing. Look, Justice Ginsburg's death is certainly one of the most heartbreaking and consequential deaths in American politics in a long time, but as I've previously stated, Justice Scalia's death was also extremely pivotal in 2016, yet its impact was more than properly covered by the articles about the 2016 SCOTUS vacancy and subsequently the appointment of Neil Gorsuch. You do make valid points, but their validity becomes less and less when they're inflated to that much of an extent. I think it's common knowledge that Ginsburg was not as influential as Thatcher and Mandela, and as such, her death alone does not require a separate article unless recentism just became an official Wikipedia guideline. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 20:22, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The world is not fair. Lewis's death did not cause the same level of reaction from the media and public. We can only represent notability as it exists, not how it should exist. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
are you joking... Lewis' passing was one of the biggest news stories in American politics of the year; his body lay in the Capitol, 3 former presidents and thousands of people attended his funeral, and several world leaders paid their respects. Sounds... remarkably similar to this situation. Also, I would love to know how notability is not presented in the way it exists with a dedicated section to Ginsburg's death and legacy on her page, and a page on the political impact that her death caused in the form of the 2020 SCOTUS vacancy article. Remember, there's a reason that Justice Scalia doesn't have a whole page about his death despite the media attention being pretty much the same. We can only represent notability as it should be represented on an encyclopedia, not how it should be represented on a news page. We have a comfortable amount of those around. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 21:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recentism is alive and well on Wikipedia. Unfortunate, but it seems to be the "new normal" to steal a phrase. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We have several articles on the funeral of people that died a long time ago. My plan has always been to cover the funeral. I will admit, I should have just waited to start the article so people can clearly see that this subject cannot be treated in the main article without over burdening that page. But the deed is done and I thought it was self-evident that it would require a separate page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, If the background information (which can be found on the RBG page) and the succession content (which can be found on the 2020 Supreme Court vacancy page) is removed, there's only a handful of paragraphs which could be further condensed down. This is absolutely a normal size for a "death and reactions" section for a famous person. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 14:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the section on succession. As you say that is covered by another article. I write about deaths all the time. It is among my primary focuses on Wikipedia. As far as US public figures go, I have never seen this level of public reaction, I knew immediately that this would require a separate article to give it due weight. Not even the recent deaths of presidents has garnered this much attention. You have to go back to John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. to see the same level public reaction. Each of whom have an article on their funerals besides the ones on their deaths: State funeral of John F. Kennedy and the Funeral of Martin Luther King Jr.. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, I don't think that subjective comparisons to other events are helpful here. The bottom line is that the content would fit perfectly in the main article without the need for a spin-off. It's a recent hot-button event, but hardly something that justifies its own independent article when the content would fit perfectly in the original article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 16:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffeeandcrumbs: the televised funeral of Princess Diana has been watched by 30% of the world's population, obviously it needed its own article. Unfortunately, Ginsburg's funeral can't be expected to be watched by loads of people outside the United States. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seldom works as an argument, and it does not here. Try carefully reviewing the points of the people above who commented in favor of merging (e.g. the Supreme Court vacancy already covers the impact that supposedly warranted this article's existence), and you'll begin to notice that this article is a bit of an unnecessary content fork. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 15:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see. I will gladly eat my words and apologize if I was wrong. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You also cannot argue this article is Recenticism and also cite OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a counter. Recenticism itself comes from comparing coverage of subjects. How do you explain for example Funeral of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. We have many examples like that. We cannot consider due weight without considering other articles. Balance requires looking at other articles. In any case, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an essay and see WP:Some stuff exists for a reason. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffeeandcrumbs: this article is recentism when you view slightly more relevant examples, such as, for the 1000th time, Justice Scalia? If you're gonna venture to British royalty, then it seems compelling, but we have to face the reality that this wasn't a global tragedy involving a global figure with grave consequences like the deaths of MLK/JFK, she was a justice highly influential in one country (let's be real, she wasn't calling any shots on a global scale), and that had an impact on one country's election climate during one election cycle. The retirement of Justice Kennedy and the subsequent appointment of Justice Kavanaugh also had unbelievable controversy and a shift in America's political debates, however there's a reason we don't have a "Retirement of Anthony Kennedy" article. If we did, we would be having this exact same debate right now. We should look at other articles, but not completely irrelevant ones. I can't make an article on Ginsburg's family right now, let everyone freely lampoon me, and then say "hey, then why did we make the Julio-Claudian family tree article?". She was a justice, not royalty of a former world empire, not a President, not a world leader, and not a figure that was assassinated or something. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 15:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GN-z11: Anthony Kennedy's seat becoming available had an impact on the SCOTUS, yes, but that was the full extent of his retirement's impact. Ginsburg is not just impactful as a SCOTUS justice, but impactful as a women's rights icon. Most justices do not have much presence in pop culture like she does, and most justices do not have thousands gather for candlelit memorials when they die. Her impact is primarily U.S. focused, sure, but her death has attracted more international attention than you might expect for a SCOTUS justice (e.g. a lengthy obit in an Indian paper and a remembrance from the president of France, as two quick examples). However, I'd argue that the U.S. reaction alone should be sufficient to indicate that this article should exist. –IagoQnsi (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@IagoQnsi: that was the full extent of his retirement's impact, and the current SCOTUS vacancy is the full extent of Ginsburg's death's impact (minus the grieving because a retirement isn't death). Pretty much equal. The reaction from the public is also similar to what we've seem with John Lewis, an icon for Black people worldwide, with many world leaders expressing condolences and tens of thousands, including 3 former presidents, attending various vigils and his funeral. Yet, an article about his death was not necessary. What you're talking about there is their accomplishments, which I think is what biographies are for. Justice Kennedy was obviously impactful as well, particularly in the LGBT community. However, no article about his death will be made when he passes because people will argue his death didn't have much impact on the political climate because he was already long retired. But here, that's the argument for keeping this article, and as many people have stated, the political impact of her death can be covered sufficiently in the 2020 SCOTUS vacancy article. John Lewis also had an impact on popular culture unprecedented by a House representative, and many, many other politicians also had extensive presence in pop culture, yet that hasn't been used as an argument to have whole articles covering their deaths from natural causes. If you think that the political or public U.S. reaction is enough to warrant this article's existence, create articles on the deaths of John Lewis and Antonin Scalia and see how long they'll last. If you think that the political and public U.S. reaction is enough to warrant this article's existence, create articles on the deaths of every President that died without assassination or conspiracy theories in office (e.g. Zachary Taylor, William Henry Harrison, FDR) and see how long they'll last. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 17:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge – The event is still ongoing, yet there is already enough content here that it would overburden the main article, and none of it seems unnecessary. Other justices and other politicians may not have their own death articles, but they also did not have thousands of people gathering for candlelit memorials or trigger a massive wave of political donations. I think it might make sense to merge 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy into this article, but I think "Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg" is a more appropriate title to merge the two under, because her death has been the central cause that unites the memorials and the political disputes. I also don't see any need to rush this; we can always have merge discussions later once things cool down and we have a better sense of the overall story. –IagoQnsi (talk) 15:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She died of cancer. There was nothing criminal or mysterious about it like in other "Death of..." articles. TomCat4680 (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge She died of natural causes. It wasn't a murder or assassination. On the other hand, the article contains material that can easily be incorporated in the main article. There hasn't been any extraordinary circumstances related to her death. Keivan.fTalk 15:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TomCat4680: @Keivan.f: No one is claiming the death was mysterious or unexpected, but that doesn't change the fact that it was heavily impactful. Most deaths, even of major politicians, don't lead to mass impromptu gatherings or waves of political donations. We have an article on Death of Diana, Princess of Wales not because of the conspiracy theories, but because of how impactful it was on society at large. –IagoQnsi (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, in this case I don't see a section on the impact of her death on the society. Diana's death, for example, caused an increase in suicide rates. That's a direct impact. Ginsburg had an impactful life but so did Antonin Scalia and many other associate justices of the supreme court. I don't see an exceptional circumstance at the moment which would justify having a sperate article about her death. Potential impacts, most of which are related to her political career, can be included in a section on her legacy in the main article. Let's not forget that the death of John McCain also brought widespread reactions, and he also had a very long political career, but that doesn't mean that a separate article on his death is necessary; in fact, the essential things are already covered in the main article. Keivan.fTalk 17:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge into 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy, the two topics are the same. The section on her death in main article about her Ruth Bader Ginsburg should include her death and funeral, and then link to main article. Her death has opened political discussion even before her funeral, so there will be more on this topic, and that all belongs in an article on the vacancy she leaves. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge or delete. This article isn't really necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by QoopyQoopy (talk • contribs)
  • Support merge into Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Select details may also be added to 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy for context. There is no need for this article to stand alone per above. Babegriev (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename. I'm a bit conflicted here. I think that the event of her death be kept as a separate article, but not the death itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWinxy (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge The article: Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is much too different than 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy. AdamT777 talk 20:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Merge as per all the arguments above. Ginsburg was unique and notable in many ways and she was put on the court during a period of American history when woman's rights were still legally evolving in several key areas. Her contributions were significant in comparison to her contemporaries on the court due to her support of a woman's right to an abortion and equality for gay and lesbian citizens. This means that her article and information about her death may span more than one article. I think that's ok. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. On one hand, we are certainly dealing with recentism and some WP:NOTNEWS issues, in particular with listing various tributes, etc. As the article stands now, there isn't that much in it worth keeping or merging. On the other hand, the situation is highly unusual and it is developing quickly. The funeral isn't over yet. The precise effect on the political situation in the U.S. and the upcoming elections is not clear yet although it is clear that the effect will be dramatic. Neither this article, nor the proposed merge target article, 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy, even has a section called something like "The effect on the U.S. 2020 federal elections". We don't know what will happen at the funeral, if any sort of mass events will take place there, etc. Under the circumstances, I think it is better to wait, at least a week, probably longer, before doing anything dramatic with this page. Nsk92 (talk) 22:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support Merge' This is a clearly unnecessary content fork. RGB's death doesn't warrant its own page, just as the vast majority of public figures. —— Jwarlock (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as merge (because this is ridiculous) When there is a death of article, it’s because the events of the death were notable. Bader Ginsburg had been suffering periodic health problems for years, which in itself isn’t notable at all—the woman was in her late 80s for crying out loud. Be that as it may, now a nation is faced with reality. But that doesn’t mean this article is the proper documentation of it. Trillfendi (talk) 05:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made a request for merge at Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers. That is probably where discussion of a request for merge belongs, rather than on the talk page of the article. Vorbee (talk) 05:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support merge for a multitude of reasons. There is already a precedent through Death of Antonin Scalia (which redirects to Antonin Scalia) - very similar circumstances in 2016 - that such an article is not necessary. The article is currently just a list of reactions by famous people to her death, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper or memorial - most of the actual content is duplicated in 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy and everything else can be merged back into RBG's parent article.
Also, at the risk of sounding insensitive, the consequences of her death (i.e. the resultant SCOTUS vacancy) is more consequential/notable than the death itself. Most of the discussion right now revolves around if they will push through her replacement before the election. Which is why 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy should stay, and this article should go. Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 06:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having two separate entries about the same person makes no sense. Her death is part of HER life. Anything that pertains to her personally or specifically should be under her name. I don't see the logic in doing otherwise. Dolphinwks (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I encourage those arguing for merge to take a closer look at the article as it exists now. There is now a fairly substantial, and expanding, section Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg#Impact of Ginsburg's death on U.S. politics. Stuffing the material from this section in the main RBG article would present problems with weight and length, but the subject can be covered more fully here. Some of the political impact issues related to her death are specifically distinct from whatever happens with the confirmation hearings. In particular, as this NYT article discusses in detail[5], there is already a host of various legal challenges related to voting and elections for the Nov 3 U.S. Presidential election, many of which may end up before the Supreme Court in various ways (even if just in the form of injuction requests) well before the confoirmation hearings are completed. Ginsburgs' departure from the court impacts substantially the outcome of all of these challenges. As I wrote above, this situation is highly unusual and is not really comparable to just some famous and important person having passed away, because of the real world impact and consequences that the death has that go well beyond the trubutes and the funeral. Compare this article with something like Death of Gerry Ryan. If there is ever a case where it's better to wait and see rather than act precipitously in terms of merging the article, it's the death of RBG. Nsk92 (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lede

I disagree with adding back in "upended the political environment in the United States" to the lede at this time. Even if the claim is sourced this is an editorial claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up. There are no polls that show a change in the dynamics of the 2020 presidential race and the increase in fundraising reported by ActBlue is not any indication of an "upended" race. As we get a better picture of the political ramifications of the death of the Justice, that can be in the lede, but at at this time, there is nothing to indicate the statement is correct, see WP:CRYSTAL. --Enos733 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the material. Editors who support inclusion of the line must gain consensus per WP:ONUS. If it is re-included in the article, it will need many more sources. KidAd talk 19:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Feel free to write the lead. I have never been good at writing lead sections. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the lede is too short. But the line I removed was problematic. KidAd talk 20:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think so. The statement was about the "political environment", not actual ramifications. Of course, we do not know the ramifications, but we do know the political discourse has completely changed. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the political discourse has completely changed within the span of a weekend. KidAd talk 20:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities w/ memorials/vigils

Why was this list of cities removed from the article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 13:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Content

Memorials and vigils were also held in cities across the United States,[1] including:

References

  1. ^ a b c d "Mourners Gather at Vigils Across the Country in Ginsburg's Honor". The New York Times. September 20, 2020. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  2. ^ Sorrell, Robert (20 September 2020). "Vigil, flyers highlight Bristol's reaction to Ginsburg's death". Bristol Herald Courier. Retrieved 20 September 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ Crowe, Kenneth C., II (September 19, 2020). "Albany holds vigil for late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg". Times Union. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  4. ^ "Candlelight vigil held for late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Upstate". WSPA 7News. September 20, 2020. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  5. ^ Barrows, Kari (September 19, 2020). "People gather in downtown Asheville to honor the life & legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg". WLOS. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  6. ^ "Supporters at Boston Vigil Honor Ginsburg's Legacy, Vow to Continue Her Fight". NBC Boston. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  7. ^ Finn, Lisa (September 19, 2020). "Ruth Bader Ginsburg Mourned At Hamptons Candlelight Vigil". Patch. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  8. ^ Luning, Ernest (September 18, 2020). "Colorado leaders mourn passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a 'fearless advocate' for equality". Colorado Politics. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  9. ^ Granada, Lauren (September 20, 2020). "Vigil in honor of RBG held in Burlington". WPTZ. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  10. ^ Amelotti, David (September 19, 2020). "Candlelight vigil honoring the late Justice Ginsburg". KGAN. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  11. ^ Boozer, Landon (September 19, 2020). "Million Womxn SC hold vigil in honor of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, calls on Senate to delay appointment". Live5news. Retrieved 2020-09-20.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  12. ^ Holmes, Elizabeth (September 19, 2020). "Vigil held in honor of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in downtown Charlottesville". NBC29. Retrieved September 19, 2020.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  13. ^ Kelly, Sam (September 19, 2020). "Hundreds mourn Ruth Bader Ginsburg at downtown vigil as Lightfoot declares 'In the name of Ruth, I will fight'". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  14. ^ Stiehl, Renata (September 18, 2020). "Candlelight Vigil Held for Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Corning". WENY. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  15. ^ Cook, Linda (September 20, 2020). "Dozens gather Saturday night in downtown for Ginsburg candlelight vigil". OurQuadCities.com. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  16. ^ Laughlin, Michael (September 20, 2020). "Iconic Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg remembered at Fort Lauderdale vigil: 'It's been devastating'". Sun Sentinel. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  17. ^ "Vigil in Frankfort honors late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg". ABC 36 News. September 20, 2020. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  18. ^ Koerbler, Chelsea (September 19, 2020). "Vigil held in Harrisburg to honor the life of Ruth Bader Ginsburg". FOX43. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  19. ^ Maki, Kevin (September 19, 2020). "Bitterroot holds vigil in honor of Justice Ginsburg". KECI. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  20. ^ Passmore, Shawnte (September 19, 2020). "Vigil held for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Hartford". WFSB. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  21. ^ Lorenz, Maggie (September 20, 2020). "Residents honor Ruth Bader Ginsburg at Jacksonville vigil". WJXT. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  22. ^ Cortes, Brandon (September 19, 2020). "Candlelight vigil for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg held in front of Museum of Nebraska Art". NTV News. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  23. ^ Owens, Billie (September 19, 2020). "Candlelight vigil for SCJ Ruth Bader Ginsburg at Le Roy Village Hall". The Batavian. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  24. ^ "Lebanon vigil honors Ruth Bader Ginsburg". Valley News. September 19, 2020. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  25. ^ Wenzke, Marissa; Saucedo, Carlos (September 19, 2020). "In downtown Los Angeles, a quiet vigil reflects on the life and work of RBG". KTLA. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  26. ^ Ritter, Victoria (September 20, 2020). "Midland vigil for Ruth Bader Ginsburg draws over 40 people". Midland Daily News. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  27. ^ Boerboom, Mazana (September 19, 2020). "Hundreds gather at rainy Missoula vigil for Ruth Bader Ginsburg". Missoulian. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  28. ^ "Ruth Bader Ginsburg vigil planned in downtown Morgantown Saturday". WDTV. September 19, 2020. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  29. ^ Cole, Joshua (September 19, 2020). "Nashvillians remember Justice Ginsberg with vigil". WSMV Nashville. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  30. ^ Jensen, Dana (September 19, 2020). "Ginsburg remembered by candlelight at New London courthouse". The Day. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  31. ^ "Piedmont Triad mourns Ruth Bader Ginsburg". myfox8.com. September 20, 2020. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  32. ^ "Vigil For Ruth Bader Ginsburg Held In Schenley Park". KDKA. September 20, 2020. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  33. ^ "Demonstrations continue in Portland, vigil in Ruth Bader Ginsburg's honor". KGW. September 19, 2020. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  34. ^ List, Madeleine (September 19, 2020). "Rhode Islanders pay tribute to Justice Ginsburg with vigil on State House steps". providencejournal.com. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  35. ^ "Photos: Candlelight vigil for Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Reno". www.rgj.com. September 20, 2020. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  36. ^ DeCoster, Ken (September 19, 2020). "Rockford vigil honors Ginsburg with call to action: vote". Rockford Register Star. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  37. ^ "Hundreds attend vigil for Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Sacramento". KCRA. September 20, 2020. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  38. ^ "University Of Utah Law Community Holds Vigil For Late Justice Ginsburg". KSLTV.com. September 20, 2020. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  39. ^ Torralva, Krista (September 19, 2020). "S.A. holds vigil for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg". San Antonio Express-News. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  40. ^ "Vigil in San Diego to remember Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg". KGTV. September 20, 2020. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  41. ^ Dineen, J.K. (September 19, 2020). "Hundreds mourn Ruth Bader Ginsburg in S.F.'s Castro district". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved September 19, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  42. ^ "Hundreds Gather at Vigil for Ruth Bader Ginsburg in San Francisco Castro District". KPIX-TV. September 18, 2020. Retrieved September 19, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  43. ^ Dickinson, Laura (September 19, 2020). "Hundreds pay tribute to Ruth Bader Ginsburg at SLO vigil". San Luis Obispo Tribune. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  44. ^ "'She's made a real difference in my life': Santa Rosa vigil honors Ruth Bader Ginsburg". Santa Rosa Press Democrat. September 20, 2020. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  45. ^ "Dozens gather for vigil in Seattle honoring the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg". king5.com. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  46. ^ Copple, Katie (September 19, 2020). "Siouxlanders hold vigil for Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Downtown Sioux City". KMEG. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  47. ^ Hopper, Joseph (September 19, 2020). "Candlelight vigil for Ruth Bader Ginsburg at Clay County Courthouse". Spencer Daily Reporter. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  48. ^ a b Stephens, Susan (September 19, 2020). "Groups Gathering Across Illinois For Vigils Honoring Justice Ginsburg". Northern Public Radio. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  49. ^ Matthews, Justin (September 19, 2020). "Vigil in St. Pete to honor the memory of Ruth Bader Ginsburg". FOX 13 Tampa Bay. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
  50. ^ Nuñez, Dante. "Ruth Bader Ginsburg vigil in downtown Tyler". KLTV. Retrieved September 20, 2020.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  51. ^ Reinhard, Jack (September 19, 2020). "Vigil held to remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg in Wilkes-Barre". FOX56 News. Retrieved September 20, 2020.
List of locations are generally trivial, unless the topic was notable enough to have a dedicated article for each location (e.g. Category:COVID-19 pandemic in the United States by state)—Bagumba (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it per the comments above. I think it would be better if we used prose to describe some examples of notable vigils such as Chicago and San Franscisco that had several hundred attendees. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, Do you mind being more specific about which comments above prompted you to remove the list of cities? ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to restore it. I have given up on this article. It is too stressful to work on an article while people are talking about merging and condensing the material. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeandcrumbs, OK, thanks, I will until other editors can weigh in as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Another Believer has already re-included the list. There has been no consensus formed on this, nor any substantive discussion on the topic. The material still amounts to WP:TRIVIA and WP:IINFO. I suggest that the information be removed and stay removed until more editors contribute to the discussion. KidAd talk 19:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KidAd, I'm fine discussing further, but I asked the editor who remove the text and they said I could restore, so please don't suggest I've done wrong here. Happy for others to weigh in or make article changes. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if there was a miscommunication. Your re-inclusion of the material was made in good faith. I only think it was a bit preemptive. KidAd talk 19:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the hard work invested into this list, I do not believe it should be included in this article. I agree with Bagumba and KidAd's logic that it seems like WP:TRIVIA. Some of everything (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How would everyone feel about converting the list to prose? Not every city must be listed, but some major ones could be in an additional summative paragraph. If so, I will include a section template from Template:Prose. KidAd talk 21:04, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KidAd, I would like to see the list converted into prose in some form. Some of these vigils were attended by hundreds and/or had notable speakers. We can also group some of the less important vigils, such as "California saw vigils in W, X, Y, and Z" or "Xperson, Yperson, and Zperon spoke at vigils in Xcity, Ycity, and Zcity, respectively", etc. I agree we don't need to mention every single city but I think there's a way to do this which gives a bit more detail without using bullets or reducing this to mention of just 3 or 4 specific cities based on attendance. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also be wary of WP:EXAMPLEFARM. Listing cities most readers have never heard doesnt help understand her impact.—Bagumba (talk) 02:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that any discussion should be in prose form, but also that only when there is something notable about the city-specific memorial or only mention the number and explain the events using one or two examples.--Enos733 (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

facts please

Hello, if this article is to be explaining the death of this person then i expect facts. Like Was the honourble at home or at the hospital. "friday way was her treatment-day so she used to weekend to recover" is one of the reporter comments on television. so. did the honourable die before the weekly treathment or after? thats wath probably should be mentioned. And that trump has a nomine WITH IN 24 hours? is that part of the honourble her death? Chris85.149.83.125 (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_and_state_funeral_of_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg&oldid=979831463"