At the risk of being accused of blasphemy, this hagiography of Rachel Corrie has gone on long enough. Since we've had the discussion of moving the victims of 9/11 to Meta, could we do the same thing with the Rachel Corrie iconography and worship pages?
Zoe
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
Zoe wrote:
At the risk of being accused of blasphemy, this hagiography of Rachel Corrie has gone on long enough. Since we've had the discussion of moving the victims of 9/11 to Meta, could we do the same thing with the Rachel Corrie iconography and worship pages?
Zoe
Although I very much support the inclusion of the [[Rachel Corrie]] page as properly encyclopedic, I see no value in continuing the images page, which adds nothing to the subject. The biographical page does include a few statements (like her love of gardening) that have nothing to do with her claim to fame, and therefore go beyond encyclopedia material, I would be content to let those details stay for the next few months.
Eclecticology
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Although I very much support the inclusion of the [[Rachel Corrie]] page as properly encyclopedic,
I agree. This is a valid topic.
I see no value in continuing the images page, which adds nothing to the subject.
I agree with this. These images are somewhat questionable from a copyright point of view as well. We include them as "fair use", which we prefer to avoid.
The biographical page does include a few statements (like her love of gardening) that have nothing to do with her claim to fame, and therefore go beyond encyclopedia material, I would be content to let those details stay for the next few months.
If she said to have had a love of gardening, and this is verifiable from published sources, then I think there's nothing wrong with having it.
It is true that gardening is not her claim to fame, but I think that in the future when people read an article about her, rather than a more general article about the Palestinian situation in 2003, they will likely be asking themselves "What kind of person is this?"
No matter what a person's political position is, or view of Rachel Corrie's actions, there's no question that it is very *interesting* to say: "What sort of person does such a thing? What motivated her? How is she different from me? How are we similar?"
Personal details are relevant to a biography of this sort.
--Jimbo
At the risk of being accused of blasphemy, this hagiography of Rachel Corrie has gone on long enough. Since we've had the discussion of moving the victims of 9/11 to Meta, could we do the same thing with the Rachel Corrie iconography and worship pages?
The 9/11 information has not been moved to Meta, but to sep11.wikipedia.org. Meta is not a dump for material considered off-topic elsewhere. If the images go beyond what is acceptable on Wikipedia, they should be deleted, not moved.
The problem here is one which rarely comes up on Wikipedia: "too much information". Let me construct a less emotional analogy -- if someone uploaded 100 photos of the Golden Gate bridge, to add to the respective article or a separate page, we might argue the same way as you do for the Corrie images.
My take on this is as follows: In such cases, formal criteria become more relevant. Is the page well-designed and easy to edit and navigate? Are the images in the public domain or under the FDL? We should not overdo the "fair use" thing; having a few photos of Rachel in the article may be OK, but an entire gallery goes a bit far.
Regards,
Erik