Talk:David Barstow

Media coverage
I found in the accompanying article
 * The major American news media organizations have almost completely refused to mention Barstow's name in news reports or talk about his investigations because they are implicated in them.

The lead of the cited source says something quite different, and my scan of the rest text supports only the lead, tho more careful examination may be worthwhile. The lead's language is
 * ... completely suppressed by virtually every network and cable news show, which to this day have never informed their viewers about what Barstow uncovered.

There's a real possibility that Glenn Greenwald, the author of the cited source, is a principled journalist, because again, IFAI can see, he refused to claim to read the minds of even "virtually every network and cable news show['s]" management or their bosses, and say why they didn't. Not so difficult a feat in this case for our contributor. I've changed the wording & substance:
 * Most American television networks have failed to either mention Barstow's name in their news reports, or talk about his investigations that suggest the officers whose views they aired were biased.

IMO, the insinuations he did make about base motives on the part of the networks are to vague to either survive paraphrasing or justify direct quotation. YMMV, in which case i for one welcome further editing that neither misstates the source nor engages OR via SYNTH. --Jerzy•t 23:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good job on fixing that up. On the other hand, what's the deal with automatically assuming bad faith on my part and giving me a "last warning" for "vandalism" on my talk page, and threatening an RFC? That was completely unwarranted. Esn (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, the previous wording was indeed a synthesis of information. But as far as I can tell, synthesis is not considered vandalism on Wikipedia ("any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"). My mistake was being clumsy and posting the natural conclusion that I came to from reading the article rather than merely the symptoms that it described. However, for some reason you immediately assumed that my intention was malicious and threatened to ban me over it. I find this unbecoming of any Wikipedia editor, particularly an administrator, and I would like an apology. Esn (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem
This article has been reverted by a bot to as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)