MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
That was exactly my point. If someone is primarily known as a geologist, their sex life has no relevance to the article.
So the FA on Isaac Newton shouldn't be saying anything about who he dated when he was young, and the FA on Charles Darwin shouldn't say anything about how he weighed the reasons to get married? On the contrary, the personal lives of famous scientists have always been interesting to historians, and they've spent many hours in parish registers and city archives to get the particulars.
Now this is an area where only using secondary sources serves us well, because that is where we get the assessment that says that A's turbulent marriage led to meeting collaborator B, while C's divorce may have been messy, but there is no observable impact on career, so we just note that it occurred, and don't bother to go further into the details.
Stan