[WikiEN-l] [[Rachel Corrie]] and [[Images of Rachel Corrie]]

[Daniel Mayer]

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]]