User:Colipon/ITNRD

Findings of fact
Several overarching points of contention have emerged in the perennial discussions that follow RD-blurb nominations; namely, the individual is not really "top of their field", that their influence and impact is of limited scope, the figure is significant only because of "pop culture", or that the figure is not widely known. Indeed, the existing "rule" on limiting blurbs for deaths about old age deaths which receive mostly obituary coverage is widely ignored, with many individuals of this nature (Bacall, Angelou, Christopher Lee) receiving a blurb.
 * 1) Current situation at ITN/DC is untenable; nearly every blurb-vs-RD case is met with some fierce resistance from one camp or another debating the significance of the deceased individual. There are discussions on no less than ten of the most recent archives at ITN about this issue with no quick resolution in sight
 * 2) Current criteria outlined at ITN/DC are not being strenuously followed during the evaluation process; many exceptions or borderline cases emerge - arguments are difficult to gauge "objectively" - leaving a bad taste in the mouths of those who are on the "losing" side of the nomination
 * 3) Generally, significance of one individual appears different depending on the angle of the observer. Postings are generally accomplished through "vote mobs" where a high-enough number of passionate supporters can push a nomination to 'success', reflecting the wider systemic biases of Wikipedia - slanted towards English-speaking, western, and popular culture related nominations.
 * 4) While there is a clause specifically limiting "precedent" as a legitimating argument to nominations, it is nonetheless a recurring theme in discussions and has led to de facto "blurb creep". This is particularly apparent during cases where multiple RD/blurb debates are ongoing, where ongoing blurbs about other individuals are openly and legitimately cited to justify that for another individual.
 * 5) RD vs Blurb has emerged as the single most contentious recurring theme of debate in the "ITN" universe, flaming tensions among users and projecting an outwardly amateur and unpolished image of Wikipedia to its large global readership on its most prominent page.

From my own viewpoint, a few examples of systemic bias truly stand out: the nominations of Lauren Bacall, Aretha Franklin, and Ravi Shankar. Bacall, for example, was legitimately an iconic figure of the silver screen in her era. But she was not peerless, and her influence outside of a select number of western countries is nearly nil (and English-speaking countries, at that). Her death was also neither shocking nor subject to any semblance of 'continuing coverage' - it was covered through routine obituaries on English-language newspapers. Her nomination mainly succeeded due to the citation of another actor of limited status, Christopher Lee, having made it to ITN. Franklin, too, may appear like the greatest soul musician ever, and one of the most iconic American singers of the 20th century - so it is understandable why anyone growing up in the U.S. in the latter half of that century see her in an outsized light. But this is not true those elsewhere in the world, nor is it true for someone who has no interest in music. Ravi Shankar, too, popularized the sitar globally, but is nowhere near the household name around the world whose death in and of itself would have a gripping effect on the global imagination.

According to the assessments below, I believe the most egregious examples of blurb-creep are Christopher Lee and Lauren Bacall, followed in short order by Paul Walker and George Michael.

How to get to consensus
From my reading of the reams of discussions available in the archives, it appears that there is high likelihood of consensus if a large majority of the following 'criteria' are met. My own suggestion is to modify the criteria to something that reflects both broad community consensus and the mission of Wikipedia to create encyclopedic content free of systemic bias.
 * Shocking: Written into current ITN/DC guidelines as status quo; the death was untimely, the result of an assassination, suicide, or unusual circumstance, or of a relatively young person in their prime.
 * Transformational: their field, widely construed, would not be the same without them. Widely construed is to restrict fields to "macro-categories" such as science, music, literature, world affairs. Aretha Franklin changed soul music forever and was a cultural icon, but did she change music globally and irreversibly? Probably not. On the other hand, there is little debate that Stephen Hawking changed our understanding of the universe, for posterity. The contrast could not be more stark for an encyclopedia.
 * Globally Recognized: the person would be easily recognizable in multiple cultural spheres, including Europe, East and South Asia, Middle East, Oceania, North, and Latin America; combats English-language bias and Western-centric bias. For example, Michael Jackson is bona fide recognized across the world, his death was the top news story in Pakistan, and makeshift memorials were being set up all over Japan. The chances of an average person in any of these places knowing who this person is is high. George Michael, however, is an obscure figure outside of the western world, and Ravi Shankar, rightfully credited for bringing sitar to a global audience, does not have "iconic" status outside of South Asia.
 * Widespread influence: the person is near-peerless in their influence, inside and outside of their field of work, and has a lasting impact with a legacy that is likely to stand the test of time. Their influence is global and not limited to their cultural region alone. Nelson Mandela changed South African politics forever, but his true influence is that of a global icon for nonviolent resistance more generally. Widespread influence also combats bias for someone who is globally recognized but not necessarily consequential outside of their field of work - David Bowie for instance.
 * Free of pop culture bias: aims to combat tabloid-like reporting of deaths of film stars or musicians that tends to be subject to disproportionate content on Wikipedia
 * Continuing coverage: the death is a story in and of itself, being reported on days, perhaps even a week after it occurs, either due to outpouring of grief (Jackson) or the holding of memorial coverage (Mandela). Disqualifies deaths for which coverage is predominantly "obituary" in nature.

Discussion
Discussion here