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