WJhonson(a)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