<<In a message dated 2/23/2009 6:11:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, sam.blacketer@googlemail.com writes:
do we really need to know the names and dates of birth of her children? And what of the career details of her husband, who is not notable in his own right? On the other hand, details of campaigns she worked on before being elected are highly salient to political views, and it's her political career that makes her notable.>>
"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.
Will Johnson
**************Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your neighborhood today. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=Tax+Return+Preparation+%26+Filing&am...)
politicians are a special case: people tend to judge them holistically, and consider their personal life relevant to their professional career. this is an extension of the rule that , even relatively minor criminal matters are usually appropriate if adequately sourced where they might not be for most other people--it applies to the good but relatively unimportant things for them as well., I wouldnt want to use them as the basis for a general rule.
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:21 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
<<In a message dated 2/23/2009 6:11:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, sam.blacketer@googlemail.com writes:
do we really need to know the names and dates of birth of her children? And what of the career details of her husband, who is not notable in his own right? On the other hand, details of campaigns she worked on before being elected are highly salient to political views, and it's her political career that makes her notable.>>
"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.
Will Johnson
**************Get a jump start on your taxes. Find a tax professional in your neighborhood today. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search?query=Tax+Return+Preparation+%26+Filing&am...) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WRT children; the infobox templates for modern personalities (e.g Television presenters) tend to specify that children should only be listed of they are notable; for example, [[Michael Douglas]] is listed as a notable child of [[Kirk Douglas]]. But this is because [[Michael Douglas]] is notable in himself, rather than any inherited notabilit; anmd os we list him theree
When we consider inherited aristocratic titles, there seems to be an assumption of necessary notability, as exemplified by examples already given; this, as far as we are concerned, provides historical continuity. The problem is discontinuous inheritance, such as is shown by [[Earl of Salisbury]], and there are worse example to be found.
Back to modern times; should the infobox for [[John Travolta]] mention his children? We had a debate about this a couple of months ago when his son died suddenly; there was nothing notable about him except his parentage, and consensus is that notability is not inherited, so IIRC, although it was mentioned in the JT article, any attempt to create an article about the son, or his death, was quashed.
I'd agree with the decision that an article about the son would be overboard. He is notable both for being the son of a celebrity and for dying perhaps in a mysterious way or at least at a fairly young age.
That isn't enough for a separate article.
However on the flip side, the son, and his death, were prominently mentioned in several news stories, and so the son's existence (and death) should be mentioned within the John Travolta article.
Prior to the media spotlight, I might have said that we don't have any decent sources for anything interesting about the son.
Will
-----Original Message----- From: Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 4:32 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] "A short article is not a stub."
WRT children; the infobox templates for modern personalities (e.g Television presenters) tend to specify that children should only be listed of they are notable; for example, [[Michael Douglas]] is listed as a notable child of [[Kirk Douglas]]. But this is because [[Michael Douglas]] is notable in himself, rather than any inherited notabilit; anmd os we list him theree
When we consider inherited aristocratic titles, there seems to be an assumption of necessary notability, as exemplified by examples already given; this, as far as we are concerned, provides historical continuity. The problem is discontinuous inheritance, such as is shown by [[Earl of Salisbury]], and there are worse example to be found.
Back to modern times; should the infobox for [[John Travolta]] mention his children? We had a debate about this a couple of months ago when his son died suddenly; there was nothing notable about him except his parentage, and consensus is that notability is not inherited, so IIRC, although it was mentioned in the JT article, any attempt to create an article about the son, or his death, was quashed.
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
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.
Actually, since WP:NOT states this:
"Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information/As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
there is a "first line of attack" from fundamentals. No one will quite be able to formulate what "indiscriminate" means universally, across all types of topics, but I think we are pretty good at [[duck test]]s.
Charles
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