WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
"Need"? No, not at all. The political career makes her notable, and if she is notable enough that someone has written her biography, including those details, then we "can" include them. We don't "need" to include them. If the only sources commenting on her children (at all) are primary ones, than we should not include them. Primary sources extend, amplify, clarify and specify details, they should not be used to introduce details not otherwise present in the secondary sources.
So if secondary sources mention "her husband the plumber", and "her five children are named Marjory, Bruce, Wayne, Robin and Ambidextrous", then we can. If they don't, we shouldn't. That would be the first line of attack for anyone who wants to remove these details.
The problem with this approach is that it brings us back to the primary vs. secondary sources debate. As long as we are dealing with a pre-defined range of uncontroversial information we should remain above that in the absence of a specific challenge. That the names of her middle three children were linked to her presidency of a Batman fan club, or that her last was named because of her peculiar educational campaigns would require stronger evidence.
Ec