--- On Sun, 12/12/10, David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com wrote:
From: David Moran fordmadoxfraud@gmail.com
Taking the nonexistence of an article on a particular subject as positive evidence of an editorial judgment by our "best sources" is an unsupportable argument. Wikipedia is not here to index articles published in the NYT and Washington Post. A reputable secondary source is a reputable secondary source is a reputable secondary source.
FMF
You misunderstood what I was saying, and I am partly to blame for that. I was not saying that we shouldn't cover something unless the New York Times has written about it.
What I am saying is that if the New York Times for example covers a topic in detail but omits, say, the name and address of a minor involved, then we should arguably follow their judgment - especially if other high-quality sources have done the same. We should not go with the one source that *does* mention the minor's name and address.
Andreas