# Talk:Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

https://www.marieclaire.com/politics/a34081115/reactions-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dead/
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/18/thank-you-rbg-leaders-react-with-sadness-shock-to-ruth-bader-ginsburgs-death.html
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-death-reactions-1063370/
https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-illinois-reaction-20200919-st3fo77b65ggrpndxra5z5sghu-story.html
https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2020/9/18/21446188/ruth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-death-age-reactions-health
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/10/trump-white-house-urging-allies-to-prepare-for-possible-rbg-departure-1096102
https://www.npr.org/sections/death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg/2020/09/18/914666608/trump-reacts-to-justice-ginsburgs-amazing-life-on-tarmac-after-rally
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/sep/18/donald-trump-joe-biden-minnesota-us-election-coronavirus-covid-live-updates
---Another Believer (Talk) 15:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
I agree that the lede is too short. But the line I removed was problematic. KidAd talk 20:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
I disagree that the political discourse has completely changed within the span of a weekend. KidAd talk 20:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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)
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)
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)
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)
Coffeeandcrumbs, OK, thanks, I will until other editors can weigh in as well. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
 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)
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)
Not needed. It's excessive (obsessive) trivia. See WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Encyclopedias are not scrap-books or showcases to be stuffed with every conceivable iota of verifiable information, no matter one's opinion of the subject. Speaking as someone closer to RBG's side of the socio-political spectrum, it comes across as pure fluff. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Update: The list of cities was removed by User:Animalparty. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

Chris, use spellcheck. I had to reread this several times. For the people who don't want to do that, here's the comment with good grammar and spelling - Hello. If this article is meant to explain the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then I expect facts. Like, was RBG at home or at the hospital when they died? "Friday was her treatment day, so she used the weekend to recover," is one of the reporter's comments on television. So, did RBG die before the weekly treatment or after? That's what probably should be mentioned. And the fact that Donald Trump has a replacement for her WITHIN 24 HOURS? Should that be part of this article? TL | The Legend talk 03:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thank you for the re-editing,chris 85.149.83.125 (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Can someone explain to me what Ginsberg is considered the first woman to lie in state at the Capitol? What about Rosa Parks? "in 2005, she was the first woman to lie in honor in the Capitol Rotunda, becoming the thirty-first person to receive this honor" Seven Pandas (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Lying in state is different to lying in honor.--Pokelova (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh. Never knew that. Thanks. Seven Pandas (talk) 17:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This section is completely undue. This deserves no more than a sentence or two. We have Veracity of statements by Donald Trump for such bullshit. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

...From among eg:

npr[1] - ". . once said she hoped her service on the Court would honor the Jewish admonition to demand justice, and she kept a verse from the Book of Deuteronomy on the wall of her chamber. . ."
thejc[2] - ". .  'My heritage as a Jew and my occupation as a judge fit together symmetrically,' she said in a 2004 speech at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. 'The demand for justice runs through the entirety of Jewish history and Jewish tradition. I take pride in and draw strength from my heritage, as signs in my chambers attest: a large silver mezuzah on my door post, [a] gift from the Shulamith School for Girls in Brooklyn; on three walls, in artists’ renditions of Hebrew letters, the command from Deuteronomy . .'"--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
thejewishstar[3] - ". . Associate Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, gave voice to this perception in her speech on Holocaust Memorial Day in 2004: ' … on three walls, in artists’ renditions of Hebrew letters, the command from Deuteronomy: 'Tzedek, tzedek, tirdof' — 'Justice, justice shall you pursue.' Those words are ever-present reminders of what judges must do that they "may thrive."' . ." --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thehill (turley)[4] - ". . only justice to have a mezuzah affixed to her office door, and reportedly had the Jewish injunction “tzedek tirdof, or “justice shall you pursue,” woven into one of her jabots, or collars, worn on her Supreme Court robes. She studied and attended conferences on Jewish religious law. . ."
theconversation[5] - ". . the wooden casket lying in repose at the Supreme Court and in state at the Capitol remained firmly shut. And in keeping with Jewish practice, there was no public viewing of her body and, apparently, no embalming. . . Arlington, a national and non-denominational cemetery, has no special section set aside for Jews and explicitly forbids some traditional Jewish rituals such as manually lowering the casket and filling in the grave. . ."
jta[6] - ". . in our desire to take pride in Ginsburg’s Jewish legacy, we might have collectively crossed appropriate boundaries.  There is no doubt that many of us feel a visceral connection to Ginsburg — perhaps because she was a Jew, perhaps because she was a woman who fought the good fight in a world that didn’t give her the respect she deserved for her incredible intellect and work ethic. Rather than questioning the rituals that will ultimately lay her body to rest . ." --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death and state funeral of Ruth Bader Ginsburg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Maile66 (talk · contribs) 18:11, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Jasmine Clemons of Planned Parenthood said "I made the best decision for my life, my future and my body ... " but doesn't say what her decision was.  If it was an abortion, it's unclear here.
Done. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
The sentence that begins, "On September 20, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, who nominated Ginsburg" is an incredibly long run-on sentence that takes up half the paragraph.  Perhaps make it two sentences?
Done. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:24, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines: 

C. It contains no original research: 
As far as I can tell, this article is based on news accounts, not OR
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 
Earwig's tool flags a lot, but it all seems to be quotations and common phrases and proper nouns that cannot be avoided.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Per Commons:Photographs of identifiable people and Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States the images provided are permitted, and documented where uploaded on Commons
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Congratulations. I noticed the nomination by accident today.  And today, of all days, it seems appropriate to honor her memory with this review. — Maile  (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, Maile! And thanks, Coffeeandcrumbs, for nominating the article and for taking care of the issues that needed to be addressed so quickly! Nsk92 (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
It's impressive to see this at GA status already. Congrats to all involved! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I know she was given the honour of lying in state in the Capitol, but that does not automatically make it a state funeral. A state funeral for a non-president requires a presidential proclamation, and there is no source indicating that one was ever issued by Donald Trump. And none of the mainstream news sources described Ruth Bader Ginsburg's funeral as a state funeral. If I'm not wrong, the last non-president to be honoured with a state funeral was Douglas MacArthur in 1964, and in that instance, there was a proclamation issued by President Lyndon B. Johnson granting him a state funeral. The dog2 (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The proclamation for Ginsburg is very similar the proclamation for MacArthur. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 18:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 00:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)