On Tuesday 25 March 2003 04:00 am, Ray Saintonge wrote:
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
Just because she isn't famous for her gardening doesn't mean we should exclude that fact. [[Rachel Corrie]] is supposed to be an /encyclopedia/ article /not/ a news report about her only claim to fame.
Our other bios are filled with information about famous people before they became famous - [[Rachel Corrie]] should be no different. But, of course, we should only have information in that article (or for any article for that matter) that can be referenced and attributed to reputable - or at least well-known - sources. We also shouldn't have an article on her just for her gardening. But since we have an article on her we might as well report on as much of her life that we can without violating NPOV or 'we are an encyclopedia' policies.
The images and especially the image gallery are excessive and should go, however. Aside: I've been meaning to send a post about how some people are adding POV to articles by stuffing them with one-sided images that evoke certain emotions (thinking of the [[Kosovo War]] article here). But I leave that for a future post.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
WikiKarma The usual at [[March 19]]