Wikipedia

Talk:Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg/Archive 1

< Talk:Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Ymblanter in topic Keep? - Merge? - Delete? discussion
Archive 1

"Ruth bader ginsburg death" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ruth bader ginsburg death. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 25#Ruth bader ginsburg death until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Keep? - Merge? - Delete? discussion

Latest comment: 3 years ago160 comments92 people in discussion
If I just count the votes, it is 45:43 for merge / not merge (I might be slighly off since there were a couple of votes not exactly clear, and I also counted the IP votes assuming everyone only voted once, but the overall picture is clear). The arguments of both sides are valid: The merge voters cite WP:RECENTISM, note that the topic has been or can be sufficiently covered in other articles, and mention that other people of comparable standing do not have such articles, with a few recent exceptions. The keep voters say that everything in the article is based on multiple reliable sources, and the level of detail would not be appropriate for other articles. Thus, the only possible outcome of the discussion is no consensus with a recomendation to revisit the events in a few months--Ymblanter (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge --Book Lover (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)
Keep 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)
Valereee, won't that be captured at 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy?—Bagumba (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
Valereee, I just blindly copied the "main" link that was in the article. —Bagumba (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
  • I have placed a merge template on the page. It is a blatant WP:CONTENTFORK. If necessary, the page should be nominated for deletion KidAd talk 04:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Oppose One of the most notable American figures and the battle to replace her is already politically notable. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • 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)
    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)
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)
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)
Political effects of the Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is fails CONCISE. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
  • Support merge. Totally agree with Pokelova, content can be split between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy. Vpab15 (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. KidAd talk 19:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge per C&C. Her death is a notable event in its own right, and this article will surely be expanded as the political ramifications of her death become clearer. It is much better not to merge into the main article, which is already long. Davey2116 (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Wait a week and revisit. Since it has been proposed that Ruth Bader Ginsburg should be substantially expanded in other areas, I would put this on hold for a week to see 1) if that actually happens, and 2) if substantial additional material about the subject's death develops. BD2412 T 19:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge to main the main article isnt long, what is covered here can be covered there as it has been for all supreme court justices articles Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge per my comments above. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge unnecessary content fork. There is nothing unique or controversial about her death. I actually !voted delete with no prejudice against merging or redirecting. Lightburst (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy Support merge Intsta-creation of separate page was completely inappropriate, write in main article and split when necessary, and without the news fluff like lists of places and people. Reywas92Talk 00:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support split-merge; I've been mostly pottering away at 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and apart from the tzadik sentence (which can go in the RBG main article), nearly everything I inserted in this article is a close duplication of what's already in the article about the vacancy. Sceptre (talk) 02:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge I just don't see why a separate article is necessary for her death. It can be merged into a separate section of the main article quite easily. TJD2 (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge At first, I was going to support the merge, but now I see that there is so much detail that I think it is best for Justice Ginsburg's death to have its own page, where Readers can just click onto it, if they wish. Helper FYI (talk) 13:39, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Helper FYI
  • Oppose merge per above. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

  • Strongly support merge: Her death itself is only notable for the political effects it may/will have. Anything here can be merged with 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy or her biographical article. This cult of personality that some people have built up is creepy. -- Veggies (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge Trim the WP:NOTNEWS memorial comments. Anything substantive should be in the bio in a "Legacy" section. 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy is already a subpage, and we don't need this page to act as a subpage wrapper. Per WP:AVOIDSPLIT: ... editors are encouraged to work on further developing the parent article first ...—Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

*Strongly support merge: No other supreme court justice has a page on their death. Not even William Howard Taft, who was also president. RBG doesn't deserve to be treated any differently. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose Merge: Since the name of this article has since been changed from Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Death and funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I am now changing my opinion due to the fact that this is a state funeral, which is a very important event. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 02:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This article is a notable event. Herobrine303 (talk) 05:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    Why does it need a separate, stand-alone page?—Bagumba (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Per WP:N: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.—Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly support merge. This is a clear WP:CFORK which smacks of WP:RECENTISM. There is a clear rationale for a separate article on the Death of Abraham Lincoln because that was an event in its own right. This is clearly not the case here and much will become WP:CFORKed again when the inevitable John Doe Supreme Court nomination article is created (cf Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination). WP:NOTMEMORIAL is also very relevant.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Further comment I did my research on other natural deaths of notable political figures. No President who died a natural death has ever had their death/funeral covered until Nixon (recentism, again). Not Washington, not Jefferson, not Adams, not T.Roosevelt, not anyone else had one. Not even FDR, who led the U.S. and more or less the entire Western world during the Great Depression and WWII, and who died in office, needed a separate article on his death. And those are Presidents, not Supreme Court justices... it's genuinely sad to me that we have to even have a discussion like this about the passing of such a monumental figure because her public celebrity status naturally made the currently grieving population flock to Wikipedia to make sure every detail about everything concerning her in the news is covered by separate articles. This happens almost every time a famous person dies, and our duty here is to make sure that these events are covered in a way where the information regarding them remains relevant whether someone's reading her article today or 70 years from now, which I think can be perfectly done with death and legacy sections on her article, and the article on the SCOTUS vacancy. (case in point: I'm pretty sure FDR's death had way more reactions than what a single Wikipedia page can cover, but it was summarized quite well in the death section of his article, without any unnecessary extra details that would only matter to the tabloids of 1945.) GN-z11 ☎ ★ 09:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong support merge. There is zero chance we would even be talking about this if it was not an American judge. That alone shows that this article exists only because of systemic bias in favour of the USA, with a small side of recentism. RBG's death is not a notable event distinct from RBG herself. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Please. These kinds of arguments ignore the unique circumstances and impact of RBG's death and her worldwirde feminist cultural icon status. Plus take a look at Death of Gerry Ryan, not to meantion an article the funeral of Princess Diana and another one about her death. If there are any biases evident here it is a pretty evident bias against U.S.-themed articles demonstrated in many comments in this discussion. Nsk92 (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
Wait and see. I will gladly eat my words and apologize if I was wrong. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
@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)
@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)
@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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    • @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)
      • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Wait.Oppose merge. 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)
Changing to a formal 'oppose', especially since some people started counting the votes. IMO by now it's abundantly clear that a separate article about RBG's death and funeral is fully justified. Her death has already had a major political impact in the U.S. and generated a huge political controversy there whose implications are only beginning to reviberate. She was the first woman to lie in state at the Capitol, and her fuderal was a major national event, not just a ceremonial occasion like Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush. She is a cultural feminist icon with worldwide following, not comparable to any of the other recently deceased Supreme Court justices. Merging to the main RBG article is impractical, there is too much material here that can't be easily compressed. Same for Amy Barrett's Supreme Court nomination confirmation article; in fact much of the material from this article simply does not belong there. Nsk92 (talk) 01:02, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. --evrik (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

  • '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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Support merge – Strongly support the idea that this articles content could be in the main article for RBG and the 2020 Supreme Court Vacancy. I think she was super influential and great as well but there is no need for this useless stand-alone article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeoutie (talk • contribs) 06:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge per above. Currently not a bunch of information about her death - just people paying their respects. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 15:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge. This can easily be summarized to a few paragraphs in her main article, and some additions to the supreme court vacancy article. A series of memorial events is pretty much routine for a person this notable. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:14, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - It's one of the most notable Supreme Court deaths in a long time and is garnering a huge amount of attention. The article is already big enough to fit back into a single section of an already crowded article. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 17:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge - will oppose merge when there are stable and long standing articles on "Favorite Foods of Ruth Bader Ginsburg" and "Hairstyles of Ruth Bader Ginsburg" and "Investment Strategies of Ruth Bader Ginsburg" and "Bowel Habits of Ruth Bader Ginsburg". Her death, though tragic, can be covered in her article, even to a lot a detail. Carunitfiat903 (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. The main reason to keep this article would be not that the RBG was an important figure, but that her death is having a major impact on the U.S. 2020 election (Presidential and congressional) and potentially U.S. politics beyond that, going well beyond the confirmation hearings as such. See for example, [1], [2][3][4]. I don't think there's room for discussing all this stuff in the main RBG article itself, but it could be covered here. Nsk92 (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge - There is no need for two separate articles. Ibn Daud (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge - I don't see a need to have a whole article on this. -Thunderforge (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep - The Ruth Bader Ginsburg article is already more than double the recommended maximum article size of 60 KB per WP:SIZESPLIT (and well above the "Almost certainly split" line of 100 KB). If anything we should be looking to summarize things in the RBG article and split them off into their own articles where possible. 198.52.130.137 (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • This is false. WP:SIZESPLIT is based on readable prose size, not total size. The main article has 42k characters excluding formatting and sources, which does not require a split. Material in this article would certainly fit there and in the vacancy article. Reywas92Talk 01:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
      • My mistake, you are correct. That being said, it is still right between the "May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)" and "Length alone does not justify division" sizes, and it'll be getting close if we want to do this section justice (especially since loading speed is still a concern, and this section is likely to be heavy on the images). 198.52.130.137 (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

  • 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)
    Most of it belongs in 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy. Her death's impact to the election of politicians can reasonably be summarized in her bio. The play-by-play detail of her funeral is WP:RECENTISM.—Bagumba (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    State funeral of John F. Kennedy#Funeral --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 22:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ‘’’Oppose merge’’’ The amount of info already contained in this article that is only likely to go in one direction (grow) shows this topic is already worthy of an article. PatriceMO1 (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge, but should wait - Although her death is notable, it is not notable enough. Agree with KidAd and other supporters, but also think that this article can't handle the merge without raising a host of problems during it. Also I forgot to sign this at first, I'm bad. TL | The Legend talk 03:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for now. There seems to be enough to justify a separate article based just on WP:SPINOUT alone. Down the line, after things settle, it might be worth revisiting the issue. TJRC (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge - I forgot to vote earlier, although I commented. When the background and succession info are omitted, you have enough content for a typical "death and reactions" section for a famous individual. There's absolutely no need for a spinoff article. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 13:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge particularly with the funeral coverage, it will be too long for the main article. This is a valid spin-off.-- P-K3 (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge now that it's also covering the funeral as well. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge into Ruth Bader Ginsberg but not into 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy. The death and funeral of RBG belongs in Ruth Bader Ginsberg, especially since 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy will almost certainly be renamed to "Supreme Court nomination of Jane Doe" in three days. Some of this info will be relevant there, but it will primarily be relevant on the main RBG page. Paisarepa 00:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge into 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy; that's not an article about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, despite the condition it's in at the moment. (It's about a nominee who hasn't been named yet.) Support merge into Ruth Bader Ginsburg, because there just isn't enough here for a separate article. 50.248.234.77 (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge Let it keep its own page, it has enough things happening to be by itself. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge into 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy. The subjects of the two pages are not the same. Furthermore, once a nominee is named that is the person who will be the subject of the vacancy article, and listing the encomiums to Ginsburg and details of her funeral would be inappropriate on that page. — Swood100 (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Let this article stand on its own, gather more information on a breaking news story and then determine if there is a need to merge in the short term future.16:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrDolomite (talk • contribs) 16:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support content being spread between the main Ruth Bader Ginsburg article and the one about the Supreme Court vacancy. Anyone curious about her death will almost certainly be reading at least one of those two articles; and anyone curious enough to read the "Death" section of the RBG article will want that information. It's simply confusing to have them as multiple articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.189.0 (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
It is never too late to create a new article, and if somebody is going to create an article about the death and funeral of John Lewis, I'm not going to complain. Nsk92 (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge The topic is clearly notable. It's amazing how much time has been wasted debating such foolishness already. This article isn't "necessary"? Of course not, along with the other 6 million. The Sun will continue to rise, irrespective of whether or not Wikipedia has an article on X, Y, or Z. It "could" be covered elsewhere? Sure it could. It could also be covered here, allowing more detailed coverage of the topic and at the same time, more precision at other articles. I never cease to be baffled by the amount of time devoted to the effort to reduce "the sum of all human knowledge". Joefromrandb (talk) 18:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. WP:DUE coverage of the death, funeral and coming ramifications would add excessive length to Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and substantive coverage of the death/funeral is not topically appropriate at 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy. As noted above, there is precedent for this standalone article in others like Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher, Death of Nelson Mandela and Funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales. Armadillopteryx 21:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the significance of lying in state is enough to justify the article. There's enough coverage and attention to constitute it's own article that would just bloat the original page. CaffeinAddict (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge Christ, if this was merged to the main article it'd be bloated with death. It'd have to be trimmed down to 3 paragraphs. It's not immediately clear why. It's a death with a lot of attention; recentism unclear, so wait and see where it goes. We can cut/delete as appropriate in, say, a month. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge - there was nothing particularly extraordinary about her death. As far as I can tell, no other SCOTUS justice has received a 'death' article. Frankly, I don't want to start a trend of every significant death getting its own article. That should be reserved for very limited situations. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 12:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
There are quite a few extraordinary things about her death, including the fact that it may change the outcome of the Nov 3 U.S. Presidential election. Nsk92 (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I am sure there is another place to discuss the 2020 election and its potential fallout. As it stands, she has no more significance than the death of any SCOTUS justice. She was not a chief justice. She was not the first female justice. Scalia's death had similar political fallout. The fact is that her death is well within the scope of her biographical article. There is nothing specifically significant about her death. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 17:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
She was the first female justice to die and her funeral made many firsts. Unlike Sandra Day O'Connor, Ginsburg was a cultural icon. Her death and funeral has received significantly more coverage in RS than those of Scalia and other justices who died before her. It has been a week and we continue to see coverage of this subject. Her funeral is now on its THIRD day and has not finished. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge Fabricebaro (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge per nom. The death and funeral articles are warranted either for highest ranking officials/globally known transformative figures or when the death itself caused a large controversy with wider impact. When all excessive details prompted by media circus are removed per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, the content can be fitted into the Ginsberg article. Brandmeistertalk 16:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Brandmeister. It seems 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy is the more notable event in this instance. Love of Corey (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge For reasons above; there is nothing that is not better placed in either Ginsburg's main article or 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy. WestCD (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge of this page and 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy; the two events are inseparably linked due to one being a direct and immediate consequence of the other. Unsure regarding merging the resulting one page into the articles on Ginsburg and the nomination since this is [[WP:Current] and we won't know what will happen over the next few weeks, so I think it would be appropriate to revisit this aspect of the question at that point. Andrew11374265 (talk) 07:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – You'all may want to work out the merger and title of 2020 United States Supreme Court vacancy and Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination before coming for this article. It would be ridiculous if this subject be merged into an article titled Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose Merge: I would consider this continuing series of events, IRT historical importance some 10+ years from now to be somewhere between the Assassination of John F. Kennedy and his brother see; Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy. Many seemingly trivial items in these times that don't belong elsewhere would/could be forgotten, Wikipedia may not be a newspaper but can and will be an asset to education for the next generation.
  • I also am of the opinion of that their's GENDER BIAS in the number of articles relating to women ...etc. here on WP. If the Kennedy deaths were in this century would we be of the same opinion here today? --:GSMC(Chief Mike) Kouklis U.S.NAVY Ret. ⛮🇺🇸 / 🇵🇭🌴⍨talk 14:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Indeed. One doesn't even need to go that far. Consider a much more recent example, Death of Gerry Ryan. The guy was not a statestman, was not an internationally known figure and feminist icon, he did not lie in state at the national capitol, his death did not change the course of national election, and he was nowhere near in popularity to Prince (musician). Gerry Ryan was just a wildly popular entertainer in Ireland at the time. The article about his death at funeral is still here. Nobody has argued that he didn't get a state funeral unlike Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush. Perhaps respect for women did not as far yet as the various news articles about RBG's death seem to suggest. At least not here on Wikipedia, anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep & Oppose merge I agree with User:Mkouklis. User:Rushtheeditor (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge for now the issues occurring right now are timely and Wikipedia can be a valuable source of neutral, well-sourced information to our users. WP:NODEADLINE and WP:CRYSTAL both apply here. All the content in the other article might bloat this one and constitute undue weight. Once the dust settles (sometime next year, maybe), the content can be reexamined and some of it may be incorporated into this article, some may be kept a separate article with a new title, or it may remain as it is. Montanabw(talk) 21:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • QUALIFIED oppose – A good case can be made for merging this page with the main RBG bio article; however, it most definitely should not be merged / redirected to the Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court nomination article. Drdpw (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge - as we don't have this kinda article (to my knowledge) for other US Supreme Court associate justices who've died in office. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
So what? First of all, it is never too late to create new articles. Second, circumstances matter, details matter, not just titles. Here we are dealing with the case of a Supreme Court justice who was much better known around the world than most others, was an international feminist icon. Her death has caused a major political controversy in the U.S., changed the course of the U.S. presidential election already; may change its outcome too if her replacement gets to rule on various pre- and post-election challenges. She was the first woman in the history of the U.S. to lie in state in the U.S. capitol. Her funeral was a major national event. Her death has generated at least one notable conspiracy theory already, propagated by Trump himself. Most other Supreme Court justices who died in office, had much less eventful and impactful deaths. Nsk92 (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
CNN & MSNBC news, etc; have build up her image, since Trump became US president. Also, not interested in promoting hysteria about the outcome of the upcoming US prez election. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Wow. And wow. Nsk92 (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge- I would say no. The death of Ginsburg is a seperate, but closely related event. Very easily a short section could be present on the Supreme Court nomination article with a mainarticle link to Ginsburg. Perhaps the Death of Ginsburg should be dissected- relevant information going into Ruth Ginsburg' article, while matters of the supreme court process being put into the Nomination of Amy Barret Superdadsuper (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Wait, first you "Oppose Merge", then you propose splitting and merging? Did you mean to do that? T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 19:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge into the appropriate articles regarding the person and the person's replacement process. An elderly (although notable) person died of natural causes, is having a normal funeral and burial for her former status. We don't do news for the sake of news because it is in the news. Now sure, if the old gal was killed in extraordinary or nefarious circumstances (eg: assassinated by militant opposition or an enemy of the State), and the disposition and settlement of her remains was remarkable (eg: she visibly ascended bodily into the sky into the loving arms of Vishnu in front of a great many astonished witnesses and the media), then wow yes that would be notable. With all respect to her loving and grieving family and fans, there is nothing notably encyclopedic here. T-dot ( Talk/contribs ) 19:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge - we must resist the temptation of turning WP into an online obituary. Merge into the biography. Atsme Talk 📧 23:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Really, you think this article reads like an obituary? Now, Death and state funeral of George H. W. Bush is an obituary, basically a list of tributes by various dignitaries and of ceremonial observances. Nobody complains about that article being present, but then George H. W. Bush was a nice old man. I guess it's not enough that RBG's death changed the course of a national election already and might change its outcome. That the Senate could not agree on the wording of a resolution in RBG's honor because of a conspiracy theory regarding her dying wish that Trump initiated on national TV. That just sounds like your regular run of the mill obituary stuff. If only RBG had been nicer and more polite after her death instead of going around and starting all those controversies. Or at least if she'd been a guy. Like in Death of Gerry Ryan. Maybe then she'd be deemed worthy of a 'death of' WP article. Nsk92 (talk) 22:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge - State funeral and political turmoil are significant events apart from her life.Paperworkorange (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merge - Fine example of creating two articles when one would do just fine. Ergo Sum 18:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose merge - This page is lengthy enough as it is. We do not need to merge anything. Everything is fine as it. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 19:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge RBG was more than an influential Supreme Court Justice, she was a cultural symbol & icon. There hasn't been another justice who had demonstrations at the Supreme Court after they died with candles, flowers and song. There was an outpouring of grief and political debate that didn't happen with other justices. I think her passing warrants an article. It is more akin to Death of Diana, Princess of Wales than the death of Antonin Scalia. And if you don't see this, well, you probably don't have many close family members or friends who are Democratic American women. It's not just what she symbolized (which you can agree with or disagree with) but the fact that she was a symbol in American society. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge per my above comments. The bio is 48,889 characters now. This page is at 19,017 characters. Even if we trimmed this page to half its current size, a merger would put an UNDUE emphasis on her death in the main article. Even before becoming a judge, she gain significant rights for women as a litigant. She then served for more than a decade as a circuit court of appeals judge before becoming a SCOTUS justice. Our bio on her still does not come close to covering her life with due weight. We will need a half a dozen more split articles before we give her life and influence its due treatment. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete This is Amerikkkan political theatre senselessly dominating what is (supposed to be) a global platform. I don't care if it's an "election year". Grow up. 2607:FEA8:BFA0:BD0:E805:8633:6C2A:F573 (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge for now per above comments and the fact that both pages are substantial articles in their own rights already. Gazamp (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Closure discussion

So far 47 Merge versus 32 Oppose, which is 60%/40%. Some comments are labelled as "comment" and are not counted as merge or oppose. While WP is not a vote, WP is also not a dictatorship. Carunitfiat903 (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if this count is up to date, but in any event the strength of the arguments has to be taken into account too and perfunctory non-argued votes should probably just be ignored. Some of the early votes are obsolete, as the circumstances have changed and the article has changed a great deal as well. I believe that some thought needs to be given here to the issues of Gender bias on Wikipedia as well. Nsk92 (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Ugh, we are really gonna murge Ruth's funeral with Amy's nomination? Aren't they pretty isolated? GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 22:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps an uninvolved editor can close this discussion; it's very clearly a no-consensus outcome. I've already posted my opposition above, so it would be inappropriate for me as an involved editor to close the discussion in a way that reaches my favored outcome. TJRC (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment Consensus is in the judgement of the closer. Cursory !votes are not weighted the same. I am sure a closer can get a WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS from this thread. Lightburst (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no reasonable way to merge all three articles. This discussion is so convoluted that we need to start over. My suggestion is "no consensus" and gove some time for this to cool down. --evrik (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Strongly Support Merge--ButterfliesAreAmazinglyBeautiful (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why not call this article "death of RBG" ... and just assume that an article with that title will also cover the funeral? In other words, is the word "funeral" really needed in the title? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Joseph A. Spadaro, look at the discussion above to merge this page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I did not see that! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_and_state_funeral_of_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg/Archive_1&oldid=1151884746"