Talk:Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Sources

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-06/world-leaders-react-to-nelson-mandelas-death/5139948

--Another Believer _(Talk) 02:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because Nelson Mandela was a man who changed the world forever. His death has left a scar on South Africa, and it has sent shockwaves through the world. Life without Mr. Mandela will never be the same for the people of South Africa, who knew him as a national hero and as a father figure. 2605:E000:1803:2F:6DA7:F726:9F23:4ACB (talk) 05:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... This is a current event that is still active and evolving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.233.28.5 (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This Article Has Not Been Proven To Be Notable!

There is no line given in this article saying how this is notable.

A7 for speedy deletion says that if "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions" is given, it can be nominated for speedy deletion.

This article CLEARLY breaks this rule. In addition, there is NO exception A7. I have attempted to help reach consensus, but I've basically been told to "Shut up". I'll give this article a couple hours, if no reason has been provided, I will take the appropriate actions to help get this article deleted. I am not trying to start an edit war, this is just common sense and Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diphractor (talk • contribs) 05:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe the sentence I added, "Reactions from governments, international organizations, notable individuals, and the media worldwide have gained worldwide media coverage.", with HTML comment "as evidenced by all the refs below" meets WP:A7. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Links

>> Echoes of a man much-loved >> Mandela Dies With Rainbow Nation Dream Still Work in Progress >> Mandela’s Death Leaves South Africa Yearning for Better Leaders >> Mandela’s Economic Legacy Threatened by S. Africa Inequality >> South Africans Flock to Mandela’s Home to Mourn His Death >> Obama Calls Mandela an Example That Should Inspire World >> De Klerk: Afrikaners will mourn Madiba's death >> White Afrikaner Group Fears Genocide Upon Mandela’s Death (Video)>> Mandela Memorial Events Set to Draw Thousands in South Africa >> South Africans Unite to Celebrate Mandela as Nation Builder >> v Former Presidents Bush, Clinton to Attend Mandela Service >> Overwhelming crowds set to honour Mandela >> S Africa begins Mandela week of remembrance >> World leaders react to the passing of Mandela >> Mandela death: Daughter Makaziwe tells of final moments >> South African parliament honours Mandela >> Q and A: South Africa's Julius Malema ***> >Thousands gather for Mandela memorial [1][2]*>> Mandela lies in state as SA says goodbye [3]>> Life after Madiba >> Mandela Memorial: World Leaders Bow, Pray At Madiba's Casket >> Memorial missed Madiba magic >> Thousands throng to Mandela mourning site >> Mandela: The stylings of an icon >> 'I was jailed along with Nelson Mandela' >> desomond tut not attending mandela funeral >> Nelson Mandela's body arrives in home village >> Hamba kahle, Madiba >> People of all ages pay tribute to Mandela >> Mandela buried in his ancestral village << Let freedom reign >> Locked out of Mandela's funeral >> S Africa unveils statue in honour of Mandela []http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/12/qa-post-mandela-south-africa-20131217103255658240.html >> Q&A: The post-Mandela South Africa]>> 'Mr President, I am Castro': Raul to Obama(Lihaas (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)).[

Headings

The heading titles for this article seem a little confusing to me. For example, the majority of the people quoted here are individuals, yet the "individuals" section only lists 4 people at the time of this edit. This appears to be a WP:PRECISION violation to me.

In addition, as per WP:TITLE, which generally applies to section headings as well, some of the headings are difficult to understand. What does "domestic" mean? What does "Supranational organisations" mean? Shouldn't we follow WP:COMMONNAME?

I'd like to be bold, but I think it's best to discuss this before making any changes. Diphractor (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I created some of the headings based on the similar list for the death of Osama bin Laden. Does not mean they are set in stone, though. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Most of the "individuals" are heads of state or government - thus their statements are taken as being officially representative of their countries. The same applies to the "Supranational organisations" section - these are organisations that have multiple countries as members (United Nations, FIFA, etc). The "Individuals" section lists people who do not represent or speak on behalf of a country or organization - these people have a personal connection to Mandela. It should be utterly obvious that "Domestic" refers to South Africa. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Then why not just put South Africa? Wouldn't this be a little easier for readers to understand? And couldn't 'supranational' be replaced with 'international'? The latter term is far more understandable. Diphractor (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Only Klingons or brain-dead people don't know that Mandela is South African - and we don't cater to Klingons or cabbages. The term "supranational" has a different meaning than "international" - the former specifically denotes organisations that have multiple countries as members (just look at the list itself), while the latter describes anything that involves any type of entities from more than one country. This is not the Simple English Wikipedia. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Apology

I wish to place on record here my apology for my violations of WP:CIVIL. I have had less than three hours sleep in total since 05:00 yesterday. I have only catnapped since the news first broke - which was just at my usual bedtime yesterday. I am now logging off to go to bed. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yet another compendium of trivia

I don't know why this has become the norm, but it seems to be lately. Why is this article necessary? We aren't a directory of sources nor should we be listing off every notable person's comments regarding his death. A select few ([WP:UNDUE]] to include the condolences of some head of state halfway across the globe) should be selected and integrated into the prose of the currently tiny death section in the Nelson Mandela article. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 09:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we should attempt to summarize what world leaders have said rather than having a directory of quotes. Most of them are going to say pretty much the same things, so we just want a few of the best, maybe from those who knew him or who he influenced. On a slightly different note, we'd be better with an article titled Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela, like we have for Margaret Thatcher, Hugo Chavez, etc. One was created last night, but quickly deleted under the argument it duplicated what was already there. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no need for a separate article covering his death and reactions when the article on him barely covers it. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 12:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This argument has become moot as this page is now too long to merge into the main Nelson Mandela article. The Death and funeral section in the main article, by contrast, is still only a couple of short sentences. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The main article is long enough as it is. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 14:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree that this article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Every head of state and many other notable people will be expressing sadness at Mandela's death. It's WP:ROUTINE for a death of this sort, and nothing of any importance. I would nominate this article for deletion now, except I think a rash of WP:RECENTIISM based keep !votes would make the discussion unwieldy. Best to let it wait a month. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Support it, tis notable for such a notable luminary. the statements bear relevance to IR students and not just WP editors. this is after all an encyclopaedic entry and there is precedent.Lihaas (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

There is precedent, that is true, but I disagree with that precedent, and precedent is not set in stone because consensus can change. I don't see how this is encyclopedic. It's all boilerplate statements of sadness. This death was totally expected and anticipated. Compare this to the out-of-the-blue death of Osama bin Laden, where people reacted with surprise, and this is clearly a less noteworthy page. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You have explicitly cited IDONTLIKEIT foro opposing,. sorry thts not valid.

its no boilerplate because editors dont like it, an encylopaedia is to inform and for students at that. this is for students of IR. If you have done it in school then you would know statements matterLihaas (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the following statement. Many other articles in the past have done the same, and - given the ease of being able to cite responses from influential politicians in this day and age - I don't see why we can't as well or why doing so poses an undue burden. Remember, WP:INKLESS. I don't consider any of these responses "boilerplate" at all. Rselby1 (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Why are those condolences important? We're a tertiary source, not a compilation of quotes from politicians of every stripe which have no impact... in fact, we have a sister site for such things. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not WP:IDONTLIKEIT to cite the lack of lasting effect and persistence of these reactions, as well as policies listed at WP:NEVENTS such as WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTNEWS, as well as WP:NOTDIRECTORY. WP:BREAKING clouds the picture on this right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the vast majority of people are not deserving of a separate article summarizing reaction to their death, but I think this is an exception given Mandela's profile in the world. This could be combined with an article about his funeral much like Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher is. 331dot (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That I can get behind. I can agree that the state funeral will be a notable event. Why not put a few choice reactions (not all, only a few) into the death and funeral article once its created as more than a redirect, and toss the rest of this cruft? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The very fact that there are dozens of very highly reliable secondary sources cited in this page is by definition proof of Notability. Whether that notability will be lasting cannot be predicted yet, so this proposed deletion is premature. If in a month or three the content of this page turns out to have been merely a flash in the pan, then we can look at deletion, but while the subject is literally the only topic the whole world's media is headlining it is simply irrational to diss this page. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. You're not reading the start of WP:NEVENTS, which says "This notability guideline for events reflects consensus reached through discussions". Also, WP:GNG says reliable sources make a topic presumed notable, pending a determination of whether or not this is what Wikipedia is not. By your logic, the Justin Bieber-Selena Gomez relationship would deserve its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this article should be merged/changed/deleted because of WP:QUOTEFARM(no pertinence) and WP:UNDUE. Diphractor (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Who says this article should be a quote farm? We can work on summarizing (in prose form) reactions by region. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If the deletionists here are so sure of their case, send it to AFD right now or else STFU. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

First off, stay civil. Secondly, per WP:RAPID, "Articles about breaking news events—particularly biographies of participants—are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. Deletion discussions while events are still hot news items rarely result in consensus to delete. There may be alternatives to deletion, such as merging or reworking the article so that it conforms with policy, for example, by rewriting an article about a person known only for one event to be about the event. Other alternatives to deletion while the story develops are userfying or moving the article into the Article Incubator." – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You make my point for me - it is hopelessly premature to even begin discussing deletion of this page - wait for the dust to settle. The fact that this page would, as of right now, blow right through AFD as a SNOW KEEP, means that the consensus is against deletion. Slapping the fugly notability tag on top of the page is also pointless for the same reason. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's never premature to discuss deletion. I said upthread I wouldn't nominate this yet, but this article should hit AfD after the dust fully settles, so January or February. Just because WP:RECENTISM would lead to a likely lack of consensus, rather than a snow keep, which would not happen, doesn't mean the tag isn't warranted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is particularly suggesting immediate deletion any more. The sentence "Reactions from governments, international organizations, notable individuals, and the media worldwide have gained worldwide media coverage." makes a reasonable claim of notability, which is backed up by the stuff in the article (though a citation backing it up isn't actually needed to meet A7). Just because the article shouldn't be sent to AFD does not mean there aren't major issues with the article itself. WP:RAPID is indeed something to think about. Depending on if we are in consensus a while from this current time, sending this to AFD may not even be necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diphractor (talk • contribs) 17:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If this has become the norm I don't know why people fight it, the fact is that it works. Multiple mentions is media is not a bad thing and gives the reader an around the world look at the reactions to someone important that has died. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Just because something has become "the norm" doesn't mean it should stay that way. Just ask Mandela re: apartheid. (Terrible comparison I know, but hey, it's Mandela!) I still don't see why boilerplate statements of heads of state should be compiled into a directory, when that directly contradicts all the wiki policies mentioned in this thread. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:IAR if his death can be presented from a worldwide viewpoint from the reliable sources then I do not see why it would hinder the encyclopedia. Anyways I feel the sections should be broken down into paragraphs rather than flag icons. I do not see this article being deleted the fact is that his death is gaining worldwide attention. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This article does not need to be a list of flag icons and quotes. Sky's the limit. --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not being deleted any time this calendar year for sure. After the dust settles, who knows? I do agree this article would be more valuable, and could conceivably convince me of its worthiness, if it had actual prose and wasn't a quote-farm. I don't see a way to do that though, so consider me skeptical. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because Nelson Mandela is important, and what's the harm in leaving it up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.55.218 (talk) 05:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about Nelson Mandela persay. This is about reactions to the death of Nelson Mandela, which the article fails to contend why it is notable in any way, shape or form.

Diphractor (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Diphractor, if people keep removing the deletion template, perhaps take a break from re-adding it to the article over and over. Why not just give the article a little time to expand? --Another Believer _(Talk) 05:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Mainly, because none of the reasons given were particularly legitimate given Wikipedia's guidelines. As you have pointed out, this article may just need time, as it could be improved. Though this article could be somewhat merged into the Nelson Mandela article, under a Legacy section maybe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diphractor (talk • contribs) 05:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Take it to AfD if you think this should be deleted, though I don't hold out much hope there either. I do not think this does meet the CSD criteria mainly due to it's notability i.e. most of these reactions have been/ will be the subject of worldwide media coverage, also if a CSD is reasonably contested then AfD is the place to go for reasoned debate about the issue. Personally I am not a big fan of this type of (grotesque?) personality contest to see who can be the first to offer condolences and get quoted the most, but thats not out concern here. --wintonian ^talk 05:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It is grossly premature to tag this - we don't need to have a crystal ball to know that the worldwide reactions to Mandela's death are and will be widespread. Give this article a chance to develop, and then after time passes, see if you still want to delete it and then do it the proper way. Continually tagging it is contentious behavior. Leave it alone - you are not protecting the encyclopedia, you are being disruptive. Tvoz/talk 20:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Another idea: Move content to Death of Nelson Mandela

Right now Death of Nelson Mandela is a redirect, I feel that since a-lot of information about his death reactions are already included here, why don't we move the content to the redirect page and expand on that? I think editors can agree that his death is more notable than the reactions alone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a sensible suggestion. I think eventually this is what will happen. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Better sooner rather than later, this way people can concentrate more on improving the article rather than looking at the way it looks now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but it might be better to request a deletion of the redirect and move this page to the new title rather than copy this one over, so we can preserve the history and the discussions here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, if moved, please move this page over the redirect. Thanks. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I made the request over at WP:AN - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Done — Scott • talk 20:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Rewrite before moving to Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela

Hi all just a heads up, I am currently doing a restructuring of this article before moving it to Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela.Reallynca (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Funeral of Nelson Mandela

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Moved to Talk:Funeral of Nelson Mandela

This has been changed to redirecting to Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela, so this discussion has become moot, there being a different funeral article now. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 06:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why MOSFLAG Violation?

I do not understand why using flags in these circumstances is a violation of WP:MOSFLAG. It says:

"Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself."

My addition was the statement made by Sweden's Prime Minster. He is a government official

213.66.81.80 (talk) 16:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this is a correct application of MOSFLAG. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Only because it is an abomination of WP:PROSE. Stepping stones. Assuming the article doesn't step up those stones, its more appropriately titled as List of reactions to the Death of Nelson Mandela, but I'm sure there is a bunch of diatribe to counter the guidelines and policies presented thus far by myself and other ne'erdowells. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 10:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Give it some time. This page will be in a state of turmoil for a while - expecting perfection when new as yet undigested content is being generated is, imho, unreasonable. There is plenty time to edit and align all the content with the MOS, but to try to do so now, before he is in the ground, is Sysyphean task. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Death and funeral or Death and state funeral

I recently reverted a page move that moved the talk page to "Death and funeral" with the argument that other articles, such as Funeral of Diana, Princess of Wales and Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher make no mention of the word "state". As I understand it, these people didn't have official state funerals, but the occasions were state funerals in everything but name. We do, however, have Death and state funeral of Hugo Chávez and Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan, which I believe were state funerals. My revert was mainly because the move separated the talk page and article, but I wonder how we should name this article. Any thoughts on this would be welcome. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

My apologies if I was too bold in moving this page to Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela last night. However, my justifications are as follows:

It is a [state funeral]] as per the original announcement of his death by President Jacob Zuma, "Our beloved Madiba will be accorded a State Funeral." As reference the official transcript and for interest sake the YouTube video of the announcement.
There appears to be a consensus regarding the naming of articles involving state funerals: Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan, which I am using as the basis for the structure of this article as it is a good article, Death and state funeral of Hugo Chávez, Death and state funeral of Leonid Brezhnev, Death and state funeral of Pierre Trudeau, Death and state funeral of Gerald Ford, Death and state funeral of Jack Layton etc.
Other notable deaths who are not named in this fashion were done so because they were not accorded state funerals for whatever reason: Diana and Margret Thacher as mentioned by Paul above and Death and funeral of Richard Nixon.

Reallynca (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Just "funeral". It may be a state funeral but there just doesn't seem to be a need for the word "state" in the article title. Obviously the subject had one funeral and that funeral is what it was. "State" is descriptive, it's akin (in my mind) to "Texas assassination of Kennedy" or "State coronation of Elizabeth II" - it feels very redundant. Sometimes an extra word in a title is important. But here, it doesn't disambiguate or improve neutrality in any way. It's not adding anything. He simply did not have a funeral of any other kind to create a need for this clarification. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Memorial service now notable?

The "booers" as a BBC commentator named them, have now made their mark, I think. Obama's speach "knocked it out of the park", another BBC commentator asserted. Been listening all night (was an anit-apartheid activist in college, with Arch. Emeritus Tutu's daughter), and this event seems pretty remarkable. Please keep this page! Soltera (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No idea what you actual point is - there has never been any doubt that the memorial service is notable. Also not sure why you're flaunting your wannabe "struggle credentials" - it carries no weight here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Soltera is probably referring to the previous deletion nomination for the article. There are now plenty of news reports about the speeches and reception at the state memorial service that may be appropriate for inclusion. I don't feel politically neutral enough to do so myself. Helen Online 10:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Cancellations section

I suppose that the cancellation of Benjamin Netanyahu's attendance to the funeral should be added to that section, isnt it?.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Split off reactions section / OR / Merge list of dignitaries here

Closing discussion, this was originally paired up with the "Merge list of dignitaries here" chat, as such the discussion is confusing and skewed. If you want to recreate the split off reactions section discussion down below feel free. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 11 December 2013 (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.

I suggest that the reaction section be split off, just as the List of dignitaries at the memorial service of Nelson Mandela is a separate article. That section is quite large, and less focused on the process of death and funerary arrangements. It is arguable that the list of dignitaries is more tightly bound to the funerary process than any reactions statements are. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Given the history of this article, there is a strong possibility such an article would not survive. Other alternatives include rewriting it so that it is not a quotefarm and hiding the section. Helen Online 06:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps the list of dignitaries should be merged back into this article, with similar section collapsing? -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 12:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Strong Oppose – List of dignitaries at the memorial service of Nelson Mandela should not be merged into Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela. I believe it ought to exist in its own page as it will serve as a reference point for the future. Similar lists also exist: List of dignitaries at the funeral of Pope John Paul II and List of dignitaries at the state funeral of John F. Kennedy. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

They are not the same thing, one is a self-contained list article (acceptable) and the other is a quotefarm (see my comments above). If you want to propose a merger, present a different argument. Helen Online 13:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see how it's an either /or decision. You seem to be being disruptive to illustrate a point as if we have nothing better to do with our time like improve the article. HelenOnline 13:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, I stated my reasoning for the split, it applies in both directions. The list of dignitaries is more highly linked to the funerary process than the reactions. The size of the dignitaries list is smaller than that of the reactions. Besides, you're the one who pointed out the deletion nomination, so it would seem better to keep the dignitaries list on this article, so how is this being disruptive? I haven't single-handedly merged or split the article, I've asked for opinions. I haven't taken an aggressive stance on the issue either. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The deletion nomination was essentially for the reactions section (before the rest was added), not the list of dignitaries. What makes you think it will survive on its own with the best content left behind here? Personally it doesn't bother me if it survives or not but I am sure it will bother some people who put effort into it. Helen Online 14:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is confused - the two separate proposals being discussed together is creating an unnecessary tangle. who is opposing and supporting which one of the two, is almost impossible to figure out. Please discuss each of the proposals separately in their own sections. These are independent proposals - the outcome of one has no effect on the other - so discussing them together is simply unnecessarily confusing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Helen Online 14:47, 10 December 2013 (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.

sign language translator

It is now being said that the translator was suffering from a schizophrenic episode.TacfuJecan (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Fake Sign Language Interpreter

Should the point be made that the Sign Language Interpreter prominent on the right was a fake pretending to do sign language?

Fake Sign Language Interpreter

81.174.156.198 (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I remember hearing about this earlier today. I don't yet know what to make of it but if anyone wants to tackle it on the page that would be fine with me.--Discott (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

It was mentioned on the BBC Ten O'Clock News just now, and BBC Online has an article about it, so go for it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

According to this report, the owners of the firm that supplied the interpreter have now vanished. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It is now being said that the translator was suffering from a schizophrenic episode.TacfuJecan (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

'Said' ≠ 'happened'. Epicgenius (talk) 00:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It may be advisable at some point to break this off into a distinct article. Ton of coverage and looks like its turning into a scandal for the ANC. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Obama - Castro handshake

Why is there no mention of the handshake between Obama and Raul Castro? It caused a significant amount of media reaction with some saying it could potentially be a good thing for both countries, and others saying it was just a handshake. --Matt723star (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there just aren't enough interested editors with the time available right now. Helen Online 15:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph about this. Currently it quotes Ileana Ros-Lehtinen through BBC News, but Sky News has a beter one from John McCain. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It is significant in respect to Cuba-American politics, however whether it is significant as part of this article is another question.Martin451 00:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion I feel it is a great step towards moving forward between the two countries however I did see the viewpoint shown by those who disagree in all I feel the section is noteworthy and from a NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What about the far larger embarrassment of Zuma being boo-ed?

This article completely ignores the far more serious embarrassment caused by the boo-ing of President Zuma. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the public display of disapproval could impact on our political history. If nobody else does it I will add something when I have more time. Helen Online 14:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this event is notable in South African domestic politics.--Discott (talk) 12:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikimedia ZA: Heads up

Just a quick heads up that Wikimedia ZA (South African chapter for Wikipedia editors) is planning to have two representatives at Madiba's state funeral on the 10th and 11th of December. I expect there to be many photographs and some content coming out of that which could be used in this article. --Discott (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand the state funeral is on 15 December. Helen Online 06:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, 15 December is the date of the funeral. The memorial service is being held on 10 December. Here is an article that makes reference to it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. I am not personally attending as I am in Cape Town but other members of Wikimedia ZA are attending. We managed to get some press passes for the memorial services in Gauteng Province. I dont know of anyone that is attending the burial unfortunately.--Discott (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

If they are attending the funeral, perhaps they can also update the Qunu ‎ article. -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I am afraid I know of no one who will be attending the funeral in Qunu. Apparently the entire area is currently under lock down by the army. --Discott (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Discott, that will be great. I'm working until Thursday but I will try and update this in the evenings. Just post the images/links here or at my sandbox for this page. I'm going to try and make it up to Pretoria on Friday though. I am going to take an uniformed guess and state that Discott meant to say that they will attend the official memorial service and or lying in state of the body in Gauteng. Qunu is an extremely remote village which makes it difficult for most people to attend. - Reallynca (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thats right Reallynca, I was a bit ambigious and what I meant to say was that the pictures would be taken at offical memorial and not the event at Qunu. You will be able to find all the picture that we take of the event on Commons at the Death of Mandela category. Unfortunately I will likely only be able to upload them on Friday but I will try to get them onto commons sooner if I can.--Discott (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I took several photos at Drakenstein prison this evening and am uploading them gradually to Commons here. I have added two to the article as we don't have much else now, let me know if it is too much. Images can be swapped for others as they come in. Please note we are not allowed to upload photos of the statue outside the prison (FOP issue). Helen Online 21:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Helen, that's fantastic!--Discott (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Taiwan and the PRC

An editor is trying to insist that Taiwan be included as part of the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the basis that the PRC still has claims over Taiwan's territory. This hardly seems an acceptable argument. I have reverted the latest inclusion of Taiwan with the PRC. If the editor wants to make a case and seek a consensus then s/he is now invited to do so here. Afterwriting (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

PR China has a territorial claim over Taiwan and claims it to be legally an official part of it's territory, no-one disputes that. However Taiwan in the capacity of the Republic of China is certainly not apart of PR China. It'd be wrong to show the Republic of China as being apart of PR China as PR China doesn't recognise it is such nor does it recognise the red & blue flag as the flag of Taiwan, nor does it recognise Ma Ying-jeou as being President of Taiwan. I've changed the China-Taiwan situation to reflect it politically on the ground. What is next, should we have South Korea under North Korea because North Korea says all of Korea of part of the PDR Korea or vice versa? Or should we put China under Taiwan because Taiwan says that mainland China is apart of the Republic of China? LOL! Lets be realistic here. IJA (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The ROC is part of the People's Republic of China. Go get a map and you will see that; it is an indisputable fact because Taiwan is not recognised by the UN. If you can't see that, I suggest that you don't edit this article, as Wikipedia is not a place for people to put falsehoods. Epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Maps have nothing to do with political states. Taiwan (Republic of China) has an independent government, miltary and legal system from China (The Peoples Republic of China), the UN may not recognise Taiwan, but that does not mean it recognises Chinas claim of ownership. China lays claim to Taiwan, but then Argentina claims the Falklands, but that does not mean they own them. You also tried merging because the Taiwanese speak Chinese, but by this claim Scotland, Wales, Canada, and America should be listed under England.Martin451 00:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but this is different. The Taiwanese only speak Chinese because they used to be part of China—and Chinese is only an official language in China and Singapore. Epicgenius (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

How is it different, can you cite, or is this original research? Americans only speak English because they used to be a part of the UK. In fact Taiwan used to claim to be the government of mainland china. The only reason the UN has not recognised Taiwan is because the PR of China block it.Martin451 01:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"The ROC is part of the People's Republic of China." LOL PR China denies that ROC exists (at least officially), therefore PR China would not say that ROC is apart of PR China. And as to that silly map argument, it depends which map you look at. Anyone can create a map. I don't see what relevance language has to do with this. ROC and PRC both claim to be the sole legitimate China therefore of course both speak Chinese, I don't see what your point is. Taiwan isn't recognised by the UN, but then again no country in the world is recognised by the UN because the UN doesn't have the power or the capacity to recognise a country; recognition is down to the individual member states. Taiwan however is not an internationally recognised part of PR China. Many countries have withdrawn recognition of ROC in favour of PR China but they don't necessarily recognise all of PR China's territorial claims. For example, your country the US does not recognise Taiwan as being apart of PR China. [4] PR China itself is only a partially recognised country. Epicgenius, everyone has the right to edit wikipedia. If anyone is bringing up falsehoods, it is yourself. I think it is a shame that you have felt the need to bring up politics and territorial disputes on an article about the Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela, there should be no place for it on such an article. IJA (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, okay. Keep dreaming. The ROC and PRC are part of one China. I am not the one telling lies here—you are. And by the way, North Korea and South Korea are listed here because they were formerly part of one country, as the PRC and ROC were. Take your opinions about Asian countries to someplace other than here, because Nelson Mandela's death and funeral is not an appropriate place to talk about this. Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And you keep dreaming of One China. Won't happen in your lifetime. WWGB (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Helle Thorning-Schmidt selfie

Just thought I'd bring this discussion to the attention of editors here, in case someone tries to add details of this incident. An ip added it to Thorning-Schmidt's article yesterday, but I removed it because I'm not convinced it's encyclopedic. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, someone's added it this afternoon. I'm still not convinced, but it seems to be fairly NPOV, so I won't remove it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Was Obama not also criticised? Helen Online 18:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it did read rather like he didn't, so I've done a bit of a copyedit. Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Opposition party's speech

I think speech of the opposition parties should be included in the article as the are also a part of the government and plays a good role in any parliamentary democratic country. - Rahat | Message 10:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Opposition leaders do not speak on behalf of a nation, they only represent themselves and their members. Their tributes have no official status or notability. WWGB (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd disagree ONLY in the case of the OFFICIAL opposition of South Africa (ie. the runner up, as I suspect South Africa follows a similar commonwealth parliamentary system to Canada). This would provide the ideal synopsis of anti-Nelson Mandela sentiment, as this article sorely needs to represent a balanced point of view. I wouldn't likely agree with their stance, but I still feel we are obligated to present it in contrast to the smorgasbord of "Greatest, person, ever!" - Floydian ^τ _¢ 10:28, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Floydian, as a South African I can assure you that the official opposition in South Africa does not have an anti-Mandela sentiment. He was that important in bringing about democracy in our country. While he did have flaws (which he freely admitted) we aren't going to see any contrasting statements during this time. I will look at finding an official statement from the DA and put it into the reactions from South Africa.Reallynca (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I've found some stuff from Helen Zille we could probably use from SABC and Independent Online. Also, Lindiwe Mazibuko is quoted in Mail and Guardian. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

How about including nations who declined to send top level dignitaries? Far from trivia, as Mandela becomes an icon representing the fight for justice, it is interesting to know which countries did not join, and why. This article serves as a snapshot of world politics today, hence negative reactions are relevant too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.81.100 (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Criticism of coverage

Is it worth mentioning anywhere criticism of media coverage relating to this topic? I don't imagine there would be much, but I came across this BBC clip in which former UK Defence Secretary Michael Portillo provides an unfavourable assessment of how the UK media covered events. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Reported in The Guardian, Spectator columnist Rod Liddle attracted controversy for comments he made about the BBC's coverage. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Gwen Ifill: Media messed up Mandela coverage

Repetition, not veracity, was my gripe with this week's Mandela mourning, Ian Jack, The Guardian

Unionist Allister hits out at BBC 'uncritical Nelson Mandela coverage', Belfast Telegraph

Westboro Baptist Church

This section has been added and removed several times. Please can we achieve consensus here? It was previously discussed on Talk:Nelson Mandela#Westboro where the consensus was not to include it. Helen Online 06:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Exclude as Trivia - If any of them manage to actually get to South Africa AND any of the local media bothers to notice their activities, then a mention might be justifiable, but right now they are simply a small inconsequential blip in the background noise. In the US they might occasionally be newsworthy, but here in SA it's quite likely that we few Wikipedians are the only people who have ever even heard of them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I am always amazed that a minority of Wikipedia editors want to give any recognition to this band of inbred haters. Their rant on Mandela is not notable, their picketing of the funeral is only rumoured. They only keep foaming because they love the attention from tabloid media. Begone! WWGB (talk) 06:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think regular editors are adding it, they appear to be visitors promoting their special brand of hate. Helen Online 06:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not a case of WP:NOTCENSORED but rather a case of the reaction failing WP:N. The Westboro Baptist Church pretty much boycott everything anyways it would be shocking if they hadn't said anything here about Nelson's death. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:56, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I also think this is more of a case of WP:N. I am of the opinion that the Westboro Baptist Church are the type of people who would picket the funeral of some one's pet hamster if they felt it would get them enough attention.--Discott (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Epicgenius just sneakily added it back in. Please join the discussion here. Helen Online 13:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What seems to be the problem here? Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

As I am sure you can read above, you have ignored the talk page consensus and re-added this content without explanation. Care to explain yourself? Helen Online 14:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

And I've removed it as WP:UNDUE. It was using the same sole source as it was when it first popped up in the Mandela article. For an item to be added it should have broad coverage and have some significance beyond mere attention-seeking. Even then, WP:NOTNEWS must be considered. For example, the minutiae of my country's delegation's visit received coverage from all national news outlets but the details do not belong in this article as they have no lasting significance with respect to the death and funeral. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It has been added back already. We may need page protection until Sunday. Helen Online 15:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, try pending changes or semi, because it's the IPs that are causing problems. I honestly didn't know that it was controversial here, and apologise for re-adding it. Epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Notability is at play here, almost all of the events the group say they are going to picket never end up doing so anyways. If the Westboro group were to picket the funeral and cause an international response or reaction then yeah I can see adding it but other thasn that no. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Other memorial activities section

Can we agree to limit additions to this section to national memorials? Otherwise there'll be hundreds of potential candidates. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Helen Online 18:01, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Separate article for funeral attendees

I have an observation and a suggestion about whether or not to keep the article List of dignitaries at the funeral of Nelson Mandela: There are similar circumstances over an article I created several years ago about a list of dignitaries at the state funeral of John F. Kennedy, and the list was so large, it was worthy of a separate article. Maybe we could merge the list onto the main article, but put it into a collapsible list so it doesn't take up as much space? --JB82 (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging the list in its present form with this article could start to make it excessively long, but we might be able to include it as prose in some way rather than a list. The present list we have of reactions is also quite long, and maybe that will eventually have to be consolidated or spun off into its own article. The list format is dispensed with at Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher, and makes the article much easier to read. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of dignitaries at the memorial service of Nelson Mandela here – thoughts?

There is a clear consensus against merging List of dignitaries at the memorial service of Nelson Mandela into this article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:13, 17 December 2013 (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.

Recently, the article List of dignitaries at the memorial service of Nelson Mandela was merged into this article by me. Then, Alifazal reverted the move, claiming that there was no consensus from this talk page. Should the former article be merged here, or not? Epicgenius (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll reiterate my stance:

Strong Oppose – List of dignitaries at the memorial service of Nelson Mandela should not be merged into Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela. I believe it ought to exist in its own page as it will serve as a reference point for the future. Similar lists also exist: List of dignitaries at the funeral of Pope John Paul II and List of dignitaries at the state funeral of John F. Kennedy. Ali Fazal (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose as stated already above. Helen Online 20:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Since this was proposed by another user and not by me, Abstain and trout the IP who proposed this. I'd say Support, but I am enough involved already. Epicgenius (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment The article as it currently stands is about 85k, with the merger it would be over 100k, the point and which we should be looking to split. The article will increase in size when the state funeral happens, and merging would create an article too large. List of dignitaries seems like a good way of keeping the size down for now. (not a !vote)Martin451 21:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: I would suggest that the articles remain separate, assuming the list of dignitaries is expanded to include references for each person and was cleaned up a bit (right now it looks messy with the various columns, tags, etc.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:18, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Weak Oppose - I think merging the list to this article would clutter up what is an already rather cluttered article. I vote to keep the article crisp and focused and not merge the list but rather reference it. On the other hand it could possibly be tastefully merged if it is done in a collapsible box.--Discott (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Strong Oppose We already have a list of reactions to his death, which should probably be spun off into a separate article. To add another would make it confusing. Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment again Obviously there is a lot of opposition to this merge. Should this discussion be closed? Epicgenius (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2013 (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.

Grave Location

The location of the Nelson Mandela's grave -- Firefishy (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thamsanqa Jantjies

Is it possible to undo the redirect from "Thamsanqa Jantjies" to this page "Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela"? Then I can start with a separate page on this person. --GentleDjinn (talk) 12:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

There was already such a page which was redirected here on account of WP:BLP1E. Helen Online 12:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

That is exactly the problem: this redirection makes if impossible -for this moment- to create a separate page on this person. --GentleDjinn (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

And why would you want to do that in violation of WP:BLP1E, which is the reason it was redirected here in the first place? Not only is it a violation of Wikipedia policy, another editor has already challenged it so you would need to discuss it and reach consensus before reverting their edit (see WP:BRD) which is unlikely given WP:BLP1E. Helen Online 09:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Would it be indeed in violation of WP:BLP1E ?--GentleDjinn (talk) 15:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Roger, who redirected the now deleted article, thought so. What do you think (explain your reasoning in terms of the policy)? Note there is still a redirect article under an alternative spelling. Helen Online 15:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

When I redirected Thamsanqa Jantjies it consisted of a single sentence identifying him as the "fake interpreter". No other detail about him was included or even published by any news source, thus the article was a clear BLP1E violation. The single event is the only reason we even know he exists. Unless multiple sources about him that predate the incident can be found any article about him will be a 8LP1E violation. By the way, according to all the sources I have just checked his surname is Jantjie, without a final S. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

O.K. But there seems to be another judgment, or at least opinion, about that in the German Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thamsanqa_Jantjie ? --GentleDjinn (talk) 08:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

That is irrelevant per WP:OTHERLANGS. If you plan to create an already challenged article, you should be able to defend it in inevitable deletion discussion(s). Personally, I am not in favour of creating new articles for someone who happens to be in the news at the moment (for BLP sensitive reasons) when there are so many articles for far more notable people that are either nonexistent or neglected. Helen Online 09:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Quotefarm tag

Given that the entire section is about reactions, "rewrite them as sourced original prose" may not be appropriate. This section seems consistent with articles like Death and funeral of Margaret Thatcher, Reactions to the September 11 attacks, and International reaction to the United States presidential election, 2008. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Aye. The consistency is the problem. Bad idea, widely accepted. Part of me doesn't want to add "like apartheid", so I'll phrase it like this. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> Nelson Mandela's will worth $4.1m >> Q&A: The post-Mandela South Africa >> Report: Women claim Mandela is their father (Lihaas (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)).

Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move article to Death of Nelson Mandela Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 23:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela → Death and funeral of Nelson Mandela – There was a private funeral too. So removing the caveat of state includes both the state and private funeral. Lihaas (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Question: Are you proposing to add more content about the private funeral? Because right now all I see are two short sentences on the private burial. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: As stated in the state funeral programme, the burial attended by "President and family" (Part Three: At the Gravesite) was part of the state funeral. It was not a separate funeral. Helen Online 19:52, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Support Death of Nelson Mandela Red Slash 21:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Support Death of Nelson Mandela, which is far more concise and consistent with similarly-named articles. His funeral can easily be discussed within the context of his death (e.g., Death of Marvin Gaye), though it's conceivable that the article could get long enough to merit a split (e.g., Death of Michael Jackson and Michael Jackson memorial service). --BDD (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I like the simpler Death of Nelson Mandela as well. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Support BDD's suggestion of Death of Nelson Mandela --Rushton2010 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Support as above, keep it simple. Rothorpe (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Support Death of Nelson Mandela, with other variations redirecting there. bd2412 T 13:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per naming of other similar articles such as Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan and Death and state funeral of Hugo Chavez. There is no dispute that he received a state funeral, so the article should be named appropriately as "Death and state funeral of Nelson Mandela". Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move rationale

It is perhaps worth noting that Ronald Reagan also had a private funeral, so I'm not sure about the rationale for moving this article. Any thoughts? Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

As I stated in the move discussion, Mandela did not have a private funeral (unless a state funeral attended by 4500 people can be considered private). The burial part of the state funeral was attended by fewer people than the rest of the state funeral. The move was not based on the nominator's rationale at all. Helen Online 07:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this move was not per the proposers rationale, most of the support votes were of the "I like it" variety. The poll itself was inadequate, the time between the first and last !vote was less than 24 hours. Some of the support rationales compared this article to others about non-state funerals such as Marvin Gaye and Michael Jackson, these are apples and oranges comparisons thus not valid. This move should be reverted as not per rationale and procedurally inadequate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

So do we start a WP:Move review or just another WP:Requested move? I'm not too keen on a Move review as it seems the arguments there tend to become personal - the problems with this move are simply procedural, not personal. Unfortunately I'm very short of free time this week so would appreciate it if someone else could run with this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Is anyone else interested in this issue now that the dust has settled? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It's still on my watchlist. Only just noticed this, but it wasn't even moved to the suggested title. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Requesting new ratings

I think the article has been hugely improved since its post-deletion nomination speedy fixes. I have removed all the ratings from the WikiProject boxes, I believe this adds the article to a rating-needed category. Nathan121212 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

'Iffy' Albanian translation

Hello, I just want to draw attention to fairly 'Iffy' translation from Albanian here: [5] , … the text reads :-I was immensely saddened when I learnt about Nelson Mandela passed away. Humanity, with this loss, is biding farewell to one of the most distinguished moral leaders and to the icon of resistance and fight for justice and human dignity. Mandela never kneeled in His fight against Apartheid, not even when he was deprived of freedom for 27 years.

The long years of suffering neither weakened Mandela, nor killed His spirit. On the contrary, they filled Him with the desire for reconciliation and understanding among people. He and His dream triumphed. His vision and kindness save the South African people from suffering and hardships.

Nelson Mandela with His unstoppable run towards freedom left to humanity the heritage of the immense and eternal value, the model of transformation of an époque and of a life of goodness and wisdom.

Now I appreciate that this IS copied verbatim from - and translated into English by - the Presidential website itself, however are we able to remove the worst errors of grammar and spelling (leaving an 'amended' note)? At the moment it reads slightly 'spik Inglish very good'.Pincrete (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Update: I have just modified/corrected spelling and grammar, (leaving a 'corrected' note). I'm unsure as to WP procedure, but think expressing accurately the sentiments (here) takes precedence over 'verbatim' rendering of the source. Pincrete (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Flags

I seek the wisdom of many people here. I am writing in the 2015 Thalys train attack article. Some propose that there be no flags. Would anyone object if I remove the flags from this article? Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I would, they are used judiciously here to break up a very long list of official responses. This by the way is what is known as 'pointy' editing.Pincrete (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This by the way is what is known as following....a no-no. Sandra opposed to terrorism (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

He's right, though. The sections are extremely lengthy and feature lots of countries, which makes the flags necessary. The train article only mentions four countries, which are all easily distinguishable. Versus001 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Sandra, if you look at the section immediately above, you will see that I have been regularly editing this page since mid-2014, and have it on my watchlist. I mentioned this on the 'Thalys', page a day or two ago, before you ever came here, btw it's called 'stalking'.Pincrete (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on Death of Nelson Mandela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Death of Nelson Mandela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 34 external links on Death of Nelson Mandela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-25249520
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/06/world/africa/nelson-mandela.html?_r=0
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gov.za/speeches/view.php?sid=42463
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ltwj1ftRJ68
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gov.za/speeches/view.php?sid=42566
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gov.za/speeches/view.php?sid=42487
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/full-address-to-the-nation-by-president-jacob-zuma-on-death-of-president-nelson-mandela-8986970.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gov.za/speeches/view.php?sid=42524
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mandela.gov.za/memorial/programme.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sanews.gov.za/south-africa/91-heads-state-attend-historic-memorial-service
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521146/Nelson-Mandela-memorial-service-World-leaders-gather-South-Africa-remember-president.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.enca.com/south-africa/interpreter
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/world/africa/interpreter-at-mandela-service-said-to-be-an-imposter.html?_r=0
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/12/mandela-memorial-interpreter-history-violent-behaviour
Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/interpreter-mandela-event-hallucinating-21189294?singlePage=true
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.citypress.co.za/news/fake-interpreter-overwhelmed-english-says-deputy-minister
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-nelson-mandela-memorial-jacob-zuma-20131210%2C0%2C4253846%2Cfull.story
Corrected formatting/usage for http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/obama-shakes-hands-cubas-raul-castro-211587752
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/12/10/mccain-compares-obama-castro-handshake-to-chamberlain-hitler/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25324942
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1210/492048-barack-obama-david-cameron-nelson-mandela/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nelson-mandela/10511954/Nelson-Mandela-Helle-Thorning-Schmidt-defends-David-Cameron-selfie.html
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-12/south-africans-have-last-chance-for-mandela-farewell-in-capital.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-mandela-funeral-20131215%2C0%2C2783628.story
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nelson-mandela/10519015/Solemnity-and-celebration-at-funeral-of-Nelson-Mandela.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nydailynews.com/1.1548211
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.firstpost.com/world/450-guests-to-be-allowed-at-nelson-mandelas-burial-site-during-funeral-1287743.html
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/15/nelson-mandela-funeral-gun-salutes-silent-calm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bdlive.co.za/national/2013/12/07/events-in-cape-town-to-honour-nelson-mandela
Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-to-miss-nelson-mandela-funeral-over-security-and-longhaul-flight-concerns-8991359.html
Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20131207081948/http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/egypt-s-presidency-mounrs-nelson-mandela to http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/egypt-s-presidency-mounrs-nelson-mandela
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131210105356/http://presidencia.gob.do/comunicados/rep%C3%BAblica-dominicana-se-une-al-pesar-por-muerte-de-mandela to http://presidencia.gob.do/comunicados/rep%C3%BAblica-dominicana-se-une-al-pesar-por-muerte-de-mandela
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131211040216/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/12/06/15/44/o-neill-png-will-mourn-mandela to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/12/06/15/44/o-neill-png-will-mourn-mandela
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131208234259/http://www.dalailama.com/news/post/1049-his-holiness-the-dalai-lama-expresses-condolences-at-the-passing-away-of-nelson-mandela to http://www.dalailama.com/news/post/1049-his-holiness-the-dalai-lama-expresses-condolences-at-the-passing-away-of-nelson-mandela

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Death of Nelson Mandela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)