[email protected] 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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
