Talk:David Barton (author)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Comments

November 7 08 - Recently I made an error in the edit; it did not revert automatically as I had thought it would. I corrected some distortions and clarified Barton's beef with the way people sling around the phrase "separation of church and state" as if it were in the Constitution. I'm going to put it back now. Then I will be said to be having an "edit war". Then someone will block me because they disagree with David Barton. Mourning Warbler (talk)

I think it is important to note the distortions and incorrect information, or at least address those criticisms about him, that David Barton propagates in his works.

Unfortunately, I don't believe I should be the one to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.56.249.20 (talk • contribs)

This is interesting: [1] maybe someone could check the claims and update the article if appropriate. Phr (talk) 04:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Very biased.

The whole article is biased because it gives charges against Barton's work, but not the defence against those charges (much like a trial where the accused and the defence council are not allowed to speak). For example Barton's claim that the First Amendment prevented Congress (not the States) from having de facto established churches is sneered at - yet many States had such churches for decades. Actually Barton opposes any State having an established church - so it is an historical, not a theological, point. This is just one example of many.91.107.251.174 (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Oct 27 - Still very biased. Entropy continues to block edits that remotely imply Barton is not a fool and liar. Most recently she blocked a change wherein it was noted that he is "best known for reminding audiences that the phrase "separation of church and state" cannot be found in the Constitution of the United States of America." On Wikipedia he is best known as Entropy and "her" friends portray him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.131.169 (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oct 13 08 The following is quite true. The article was badly written; after I brought it up a bit, it was reverted with the excuse that it was "not neutral." David Barton's opinions are not neutral; the article is about him and his work, not about the people who resort to ad hominems such as "pseudo-historian." According to enwiki, Barton historically has the qualifications of a historian even if some people in this day disagree; his qualifications as a historian are also explained below by another editor. Senator Specter apparently has not personally studied Barton's documentation and is not a historian himself; I deleted the first instance of his quote about Barton, and though it probably doesn't really belong there at all, I left in the second instance of his same quote. Aunt Entropy and Chihuahua are demanding the redundant version highlighting Specter rather than Barton.

Concerning the portion of the article highlighting Barton's unsourced quotes, the editors apparently fail to understand that this is a common matter in reconstructing history. The quotes were sourced, but Barton later found he could not go back to the original source, and this troubled him, because he had set for himself higher standards. He is able to console himself with the fact that the quotes do ring true with the other original source information, and one day it may be possible to trace them to the original sources. References to these matters are found in citations within the Barton wiki.

I wrote generally about David Barton and his work, and I included citations. Aunt Entropy and Killer Chihuahua may be in agreement with each other, but a consensus of two or three does not in this case constitute "truth." I have a consensus of more than three from where I am sitting; they just are not editing the wiki. Also, there are people who have left information on these discussion pages that are much more in agreement with the approach I took in editing than with those of Aunt Entropy and Chihuahua. Oct 13 08 Mourning Warbler (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Very biased information, as well as very biased sources that mostly try to smear him. A lot citations missing and no supporters views or sources presented. Distrustful.

Sorry, but it seems like almost all of the "smear"-ing facts are cited and referenced. When the facts don't say what you want them to, that's not bias. That's reality. Dave 16:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the particulars of Barton's historical work, so I don't dispute or support the claim that they are revisionist. I do, however, take issue with the claim that he's not a historian because he doesn't have a degree in history. Take a walk through the history section of your local Borders or Barnes and Noble. If you were to stack all the history books not written by people with BAs or advanced degrees in history, most of which are accepted historical accounts and critically acclaimed, you will probably empty out a large part of the history section. IT seems to me a lot of history professors are trying to counter the claim Barton makes about the founding fathers' religious inclinations by attacking his credentials. Unlike nuclear physics, for example, you don't need a PhD in history to write a good history. I've read great history books by both history PhDs/students as well as those educated in other fields, and I've read terrible history books by people from both areas.

It would appear that the only basis for describing David Barton as a 'historian' would be to claim that he is a writer of 'history books.' But can his books be legitimately be described as 'history'? They do not appear to narrate important historical events or lives, as one would normally expect from a history book. Rather they appear to employ quotations from historic figures in order tojustify a political viewpoint. This could be argued to be 'political advocacy' rather than 'history.' As such these books, on their own, would appear to be inadequate substantiation for a claim that Barton is a 'historian.' I would therefore suggest that further substantiation of this description be sought, and if it cannot be found then the word 'historian' be removed or qualified (e.g. "self-described historian" or similar).Hrafn42 17:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Further to my earlier comments, it seems strange that, for a supposed 'historian,' it is his praise by a politician (rather than by fellow historians) that is included, and that he is described as a powerful "Evangelical Leader." This would all indicate that he is notable in the field of politics rather than in historical research. I am therefore increasingly of the opinion that the first sentence should read: "David Barton (born 1954) is an author, a conservative political advocate and a self-described historian." ("Self-described" because that is how he has himself described on his Wallbuilders biography.)Hrafn42 17:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I support your analysis above. Wjhonson 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Common dictionary definition of “historian” 1. an expert in history; authority on history; 2. a writer of history; chronicler (most dictionaries are similar). David Barton has written books that even fit your narrower definition (e.g., Benjamin Rush, Bulletproof George Washington) Regardless of the fact his critics would like to contest the description because they disagree with him; he irrefutably fits the commonly understood definition of a historian.--Attenuator 21:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I looked up Benjamin Rush on Amazon, one reviewer described it as:

In fact, I can't even call it a biography; it devotes only a few pages to an "overview" of the man's life. Thereafter, it turns into what I can only describe as Christian propaganda -- apparently, the author believes that Christianity should dominate every aspect of modern life, both public and private, and seeks to use the writings of Benjamin Rush to prove his position.

Whilst such a book review is not a reliable source, it does raise questions, and even the Editorial 'Book Description' emphasises the book's quotations of Rush over biography of him.

Likewise, the Editorial 'Book Description' of Bulletproof George Washington describes it as:

This thrilling account of God's care of George Washington during the French and Indian War is a story that once appeared in many history textbooks but has since disappeared. You'll learn of Washington's character, God's miraculous protection of him in battle, and of Washington's open gratitude for God's intervention on his behalf.

This is clearly rather fanciful Christian propaganda rather than serious historical research.

I would conclude that, absent substantiation of their historical merits, neither should be considered to be serious historical biographies, and that they should be discounted as evidence that David Barton is a 'historian.'

Further, Attenuator has presented no evidence that David Barton can legitimately be considered "an expert in history" or an "authority on history," nor does the article provide any substantiation of this point beyond the claim, by Barton's own organisation that he has carried out "exhaustive research (from original writings) on the Founding Era [that] has rendered him an expert in this field." I would question if this is a reliable source for Barton's research and expertise. Hrafn42 07:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Or a better word would be "apologist". A historian does not set out to prove a pre-conceived notion, they allow the sources to speak for themselves. Barton however has admitted that some of his quotations are made up. Wjhonson 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have personally looked up many of his quotes used in Original Intent using primary sources in university and other libraries – they are accurate. (You will have to show me where he “admitted making up” quotes.) The quotes he uses from the Founders DO speak for themselves and are easily verified using his footnote citations. I challenge you to look them up for yourself.--Attenuator 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm sure you've "personally looked up many of his quotes". It's highly likely Attenuator is another sock-puppet of Barton's. All his postings are to this page Attenuator contributions. Wjhonson 08:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And you have babysat this page to ensure that it reflects your own personal antagonisms and biases. Anything that mentions "God" or Christianity in a positive light is obviously suspect in your world of "respected scholars" (i.e., those with your viewpoint). It’s not surprising that sources you cite all seem to come from the same perspective - hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia article (but certainly good copy if this was a liberal blog). --Attenuator 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Further evidence that Barton isn't seriously regarded as a 'Historian':

Respected scholars, regardless of their position on this matter, cite the works of other scholars and primary sources, etc in their footnotes and end notes. Perhaps, the biggest condemnation of Barton and his work is that rarely, if ever, do respected scholars cite any of his publications as any kind of source. Even those respected scholars who basically agree with his position rarely, if ever, cite any of his publications. They don't want to connect their names to his, because of his reputation for shoddy research, inaccuracies, misrepresentations, etc.[2]

Anybody who wishes to dispute the above assertion is welcome to present a substantial list of citations of his work by respected historians to refute it (there are plenty of online citation-search-engines about). Failure to do so will be taken as admission that historians do not consider him to be one of their own. Hrafn42 15:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Oct 13 08 Concerning the above statement that historians do not cite Barton, why would they? He is not an original source. His work is about putting the quotes and legislation side by side with those who spoke and penned them during the era of history in which America became a nation. Mourning Warbler (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to post this, but would like to suggest an external link to a review of "Original Intent" at http://www.america-betrayed-1787.com/david-barton.html. What is the procedure for getting approval for such a review?Tmarkets (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

In mentioning Barton's "shoddy work," while we're at it, who in the world wrote this article? Invmog (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The article is indeed very biased indeed - much like the "academic history" in which a view of the Founders (and later Americans) is taught that none of these people would recognise as a picture of their beliefs or actions. I have added a few lines in defence of Barton to the article (without removing one word of the attacks upon him), but my prediction is that these lines of defence will be removed - "liberals" (the meaning of this word has been utterly transformed over the years) tend to be utterly intolerant of anyone who dissents from their opinions. It is not just David Barton that "liberals" hate (and smear) it is ANYONE who does not agree with them.91.107.238.150 (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Glorification

Any claim that seems overly positive is going to need a specific, quoted, citation. Wjhonson 06:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are Barton's Angel Awards worthy of note? All they indicate is the following:

The recipients of the Gold and Silver Angels are people in any form of the media who have successfully contributed to the advancement of quality in life without the unnecessary need for violence, profanity and sexual content to sell to their audience. Today, the highly visible Angel Awards--while not the only project of this organization-- are, by far, the largest undertaking of EIM. Excellence in Media stresses that it is a non-profit, non-political, non-sectarian volunteer organization cutting across all demographic strata and all forms of media.[3]

Hardly a prestigious or notable award. Hrafn42 13:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Surely, it's notable that entries submitted by Barton's production company have won media awards given out by an organization that is (according to the page about it at IMDb) "...primarily financed by media award entries." Surely, it's notable that his biography on his website takes the trouble to point out that he has received these awards. Let the man speak for himself! His words and actions will reveal who he truly is. Whyaduck 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the whole thing is distinctly Rimmeresque[4], but feel that it may mislead readers who are unaware of the actual stature of Angel Awards. Would it be appropriate to to modify the sentence to say:

Barton has been given two Angel Awards from the group "Excellence in Media"[5], which are awarded to "people in any form of the media who have successfully contributed to the advancement of quality in life without the unnecessary need for violence, profanity and sexual content to sell to their audience."[6]

Hrafn42 15:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your suggested addition wouldn't harm the article, but I think Wikipedia needs a short article about the organization Excellence in Media, to which this article (and any other articles which mention Angel Awards) could link. I understand your concern that some readers may be misled if too little information is included in an article, but I have some hope that a word to the wise remains sufficient—and the merely ignorant may be less likely than would be, say, the prejudiced, to find some things lightly touched upon to be obscure beyond understanding. Taking this tack does of course run the risk that some innocent but none-too-bright folk could be misled, but I suspect these to be fewer than you might fear. Our main concern is those who come to the page pre-misled and thus choose to remove factual information they perceive as unfair or to add erroneous content they truly but mistakenly believe to be accurate and just. The article may eventually need official Wikipedia protection, but I think quite a bit could be accomplished short of that. Whyaduck 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I've inserted the description. If anybody ever gets around to creating an article on Excellence in Media (assuming they're considered to be 'notable'), the description can be replaced by a link to it. Hrafn42 13:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes

I reverted the recent changes which introduc, but added some of them back in. So for example, Wallbuilders was previously described as a "historical revisionism" group, which I think is overkill, as they and many of their supports wouldn't summarize the group that way. Instead the group had haracterized as "pro-family", is an unverifiable opinion. Instead, I summmarized it quoting from the group in a way that gets across the gist that the group exists to promote Barton's political POV. You get the idea.

In general, the article needs to be better sourced, particularly using sources from mainstream media (cnn/nytimes/fox/bbc/etc). It seems like we should also exhibit a fair amount of healthy skepticism to positive aspect of Barton's own bio. For example, it claims he got the DAR's highest award, the George Washington Honor Medal. I left it in, but I can't find any reference to the DAR even having a "George Washington Honor Medal". I similarly can't find any sources that talk about the DAR giving him a medal (aside from websites that basically seem to be just reiterating his own bio). --Alecmconroy 02:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that Barton appears to get little attention (and almost no direct discussion) from the mainstream media. His work seems to get attention and discussion (applause or criticism) mainly in the blogosphere. Hrafn42 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Scratching around on Google in an idle moment, I turned up that most 'George Washington Honor Medals' mentioned appear to be awarded by the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge. Could his Wallbuilders biographer have gotten them confused with the DAR (they're both historical/patriotic groups)? Hrafn42 12:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The last paragraph

I've marked the article for weasel words mostly based on the last paragraph, which makes very liberal use of them. The paragraph needs to be rewritten to remove them and should also have sources to back up its claims. I note this paragraph was only added recently so it might be better to just delete it. I've also added a note to the talk page of the contributor who added the paragraph. Inexorability 22:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the last revision (11:05 8 March 2007): First, this update added two citations and changed a few sentences to the last paragraph. I looked at the citations and, quite honestly, I'm really not sure why they're there. The first (currently numbered 10) is a link to a list of quotes from historical figures on David Barton's organization's page, which is irrelevant to what it claims to cite (and probably inappropriate given the fact that Barton's quotes are disputed). The second (numbered 11) is a link to an opinion piece which makes no mention of the book or its authors which the citation appears after. The closest connection I can find is that it is a response to an article (written by a different author) which shares a similar name with the book after the citation.

Second, I looked up the two books mentioned and both seem to be books about the topic of separation of church and state rather than responses to Barton. For this reason I don't think they are relevant to this article. The Amazon.com listing for The Godless Constitution has a list of capitalized phrases available, which does not include David Barton's name (see the "Inside This Book" section).

Also, the fact that The Godless Constitution does not use footnotes seems to be highly misleading. The fact that a book does not use footnotes in no way means that it does not use sources at all as the article heavily implies.

Interestingly, when I was looking these things up, I came across a page on David Barton's WallBuilders site. Section 4 seems suspiciously similar to the recent additions.

In conclusion(s): First, I really don't want to get into an edit war (which is why I'm hesitant to revert it), but I honestly don't think the last revision added much that contributed to the article. Second, I've tried to think how the last paragraph could be rewritten and improved, I'm not sure how it can be. It's still peppered with weasel words and seems to be inherently POV. I think the best course of action would probably be to just delete the paragraph. Discussion? Inexorability 19:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is fairly hopeless in my opinion. Barton or his hired assistants revert every change that portrays the actuality of the situation. Until we have *more* editors willing to restore the original article from a few months ago, I don't see how we can fix it at all. Wjhonson 01:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is 'owned' by Bwallace07 & Attenuator

This article is 'owned' by Bwallace07 & Attenuator. Do not bother trying to make any contributions that are not sympathetic to Barton, as they will simply immediately revert them without discussion.

And most importantly, do not contribute anything that even tangentially alludes to the rather obvious point that Barton's primary motivation is political activism, not historical scholarship -- they really don't like that.

This section has been created so that others don't make the same mistake I did, and waste time discussing and making contributions that have zero chance of getting by the 'owners.'

Those who this section makes uncomfortable have two options: (a) they can take Bwallace07 & Attenuator's route and simply make this section disappear (I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find some Wikipedia rule that you could claim it violates); or (b) prove me wrong (by showing that well-sourced unsympathetic material has a chance of surviving). Hrafn42 14:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that Bwallace07 and Attenuator are the same person. Wjhonson 05:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

To put it simply, what is occurring is your long-term use of this article to vent your personal political antagonisms and religious prejudices is being challenged. Your biases and arrogance are clearly evident from your user profile. Your “well sourced” contributions all come from one perspective (blatantly negative) with the obvious purpose of casting Mr. Barton in the worst possible light. The last time I checked, Wikipedia was still listed as an encyclopedia and not your personal blog.--Attenuator 06:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Attenuator: you and Bwallace07 aren't "challenging" anything. You both are simply reverting anything unflattering to Barton (which isn't hard to find, given the low opinion that respectable Historians have of him) and anything that reveals his blatant political motivation. I would note that you have not even attempted to rebut my earlier (substantiated) assertion that Benjamin Rush & Bulletproof George Washington are both blatant pieces of Christian propaganda of negligible scholarly historical value. So much for "challenging." Hrafn42 10:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wjhonson: I suspect that Bwallace07 & Attenuator aren't the same person. Their objectives are identical, yes (but such objectives are typical of most Right Wing Authoritarian followers) -- but their methods differ & complement each other only imperfectly (if they are sockpuppets of the same person, that person has gone out of their way to be an incompetent puppeteer). Hrafn42 10:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Structure

Now that people have stopped reflexively reverting anything new (at least for the moment), could I suggest taking advantage of the lull consolidating the existing content into some section headings, e.g.:

• Biography (education, school-teacher, family)
• Historical research (Specialty Research Associates, Wallbuilders)
• Criticism
• Other activities (Republican Party, Providence Foundation)

Hrafn42 15:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Texas Monthly on Barton's mischaracterisation of Jefferson (and denial that he had done it)

I'm summarising this in the main article, but thought it worth while to put the relevant two paragraphs here to show that my summary actually waters down the negative press that Barton received in it (in case anybody wants to argue POV).

Perhaps the most embarrassing gaffe Barton has been accused of is an egregious mischaracterization of Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptists. Barton allegedly said that Jefferson referred to the wall of separation between church and state as "one-directional"--that is, it was meant to restrain government from infringing on the church's domain but not the other way around. There is no such language in the letter. This mistaken quote does not appear on Barton's list of retractions, however, and when I asked Barton about it, he denied ever having misquoted Jefferson's letter in any of his publications. He claimed instead that unspecified critics had merely heard him mention the "one-directional wall" in a speech and that he had in fact been summarizing Jefferson's general views on the First Amendment, not purporting to paraphrase or quote from the Danbury Letter. In other words, his critics had dishonestly taken his words out of context to make him look bad.

For whatever reason, Barton is not telling the truth. The mistake in question comes from a 1990 version of Barton's video America's Godly Heritage. Here are Barton's exact words from the tape: "On January 1,1802, Jefferson wrote to that group of Danbury Baptists, and in this letter, he assured them--he said the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state, he said, but that wall is a one-directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government." Ina later version of the video, Barton carefully fixed this mistake, so it's not something be could have forgotten. He has admitted to making other mistakes, so why not acknowledge this one? It may be that the Danbury gaffe--like his first book, now out of print, in which he claimed that God spoke to him--is something that the new Barton, the Time-approved Barton, can no longer afford.

[7] Hrafn42 17:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Should he be listed as a Pseudohistorian?

According to the current state of this article and the criteria at the Pseudohistory article, Barton clearly meets the first 3 of the 5 criteria. "That the work has a political, religious or other ideological agenda." This is obvious, as his work clearly has a religious agenda (it tries to change the religion of the founders of the USA from Deist/Unitarian to Christian and to write the Separation of Church and State out of the Constitution). "That a work is not published in an academic journal or is otherwise not adequately peer reviewed." Obviously, his work is not peer reviewed. "That the evidence for key facts supporting the work's thesis is: speculative, controversial, not correctly or adequately sourced, interpreted in an unjustifiable way given undue weight, taken out of context, or distorted, either innocently, accidentally, or fraudulently." His use of unsourced and likely fake Founder quotes meets the first 3. He takes Jefferson out of context (afterall, Jefferson was a lifelong opponent of organized religion and was frequently accused by the Christians of his time of being an Atheist). The other 2 criteria are "That competing (and simpler) explanations or interpretations for the same set of facts, which have been peer reviewed and have been adequately sourced, have not been addressed." and "That the work relies on one or more conspiracy theories or hidden hand explanations, when the principle of Occam's razor would recommend a simpler, more prosaic and more plausible explanation of the same fact pattern." For what its worth, he is listed as a Pseudohistorian over at the Pseudohistory article and he does seem to be a pretty good fit, so I've edited the article to correct this (I assume the policies regarding pseudohistory are similar to the ones regarding pseudoscience, right?). Life, Liberty, Property (talk) 13:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think an argument could be made for the fourth criteria as well: that the commonly held hypothesis, that the framers of the constitution did in fact intend separation of church and state, is a simpler competing "explanation[] or interpretation[] for the same set of facts, which [has] been peer reviewed and [has] been adequately sourced, [has] not been addressed." I would have no problem with Barton being listed as a pseudohistorian. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I've lost a lot of faith in PEER REVIEWED papers. We can see that this alone does not guarantee quality or lack of bias. Look at all the forged peer reviewed paper associated with the UK global warming computer break in. Peer reviewed is theoretically a wonderful thing, but in practice I wouldn't put complete faith in it. I see we also have users with barnstar-ladened pages getting quite emotional over this article. If you're that upset, maybe you should leave this one alone for a while. So Barton doesn't get quoted by other "historians", well the fact that he's trying to make the case that many have been lying to the American people about our history, could likely be a reason. Putting these people in question is likely questioning the Pope. They have the PhDs, and they OWN history....who is Barton to come along and question them. History as taught in public schools has been criticized for many years, long before Barton. I'm not saying everything he writes is correct, but educated and intelligent people can read and dig for information just as well as our PhD history professors. Lack of a degree in history doesn't indicate a lack of ability to understand history. Some history experts and justices have taken a single letter written by a President and used it as a primary reason to proclaim absolutes about separation of church and state. If these folks used a little common sense instead, I think they'd trip over the truth sooner. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 23:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not that a PhD is a requirement to write about history-- people do it all the time. But if you are going to claim you're a historian, and if you then reach an extremely unorthodox conclusion, your scholarship needs to be exemplary. Barton's just isn't. Not because his conclusions are necessarily wrong, but because his work is fundamentally flawed. Relying on apparently made-up quotes isn't the mark of a real historian. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Barton could meet every single criterion from the Pseudohistory article, but it would not mean this article should list him as a pseudohistorian, and the reasons are several.

(1) Wikipedia articles cannot be used as source material for other Wikipedia article. This immediately kills the idea of using the term as it has been in this article.

(2) Pseudohistorian is an admittedly pejorative term, automatically making it inappropriate in a biographical sketch in any but the most extreme cases (and Barton is not the most extreme case).

(3) Pseudohistorian is an ad hoc, invented word.

(4) Claims that David Barton is a pseudohistorian are unsourced (except from another Wikipedia article, which is explicitly forbidden by Wiki rules).

(5) Self-published works are permissible in cases in which the author has received significant recognition of his work from authorities. Maybe that only begs the question, but Barton is praised by those whom I respect, and vilified by those who I don't.

(6) The list of examples given in the Pseudohistory article are not cited, and look like original research (or POV).

(7) David Barton is not on the list in the Pseudohistory article; I took him off. His inclusion was unsourced, and the term "pseudohistory" is dubious, anyway. Pooua (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this discussion only after I removed the word and category. Unless Barton is cited as a pseudohistorian in reliable sources, please do not restore either. Relata refero (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

but has no academic qualifications in history.

Why are things the person "is not" listed on their biography? I want to know what the person "is", not what they are not. It smacks of someone wanting to make a point. I just want to know the biography. I should point out that listing the things a person is not, is an infinitely long list; therefore, it doesn't make sense to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.255.143 (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Because he makes pseudohistorical claims and is regarded in Christian right/Christian nation circles as a 'historian'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

If someone presented themselves as an economist, but had no degree in economics, that'd likewise be worth pointing out. If someone works as an engineer but is self taught then that is also worth mentioning. (see William Mulholland) The closest analogy here, no offense, is David Irving, who has no degree in history and some of his books are considered very poor history by other historians, yet he presents himself as a historian. After much discussion it was finally decided to call him a "writer".   Will Beback  talk  05:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, a biography doesn't care about refuting a person's own claims about themselves. If he has academic qualifications in history, it's worth noting in the biography. If he doesn't, then it's *assumed* that he doesn't by the mere fact that it's not in the biography. Clearly, this is redundant and only servers to beat a dead horse. Why not mention every other thing the man doesn't do or never did? Because it'd be ridiculous and would take far more space than listing what he has done. It's like the difference between a whitelist and a blacklist. A biography should be a whitelist of facts, not a blacklist of refutations. If you can't see that, you're clearly too biased to rationally judge this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.188.255.143 (talk) 06:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by verifiably summarizing reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If sources make an issue of the subject's lack of a degree, then we should tkae their cue and mention it. If the subject's lack of education is noted in reliable sources then we should note it too.   Will Beback  talk  06:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Specter quote

Specter does not have a degree in history or American history either. There is no indication that he has seriously looked into Barton's work. Why would he be used as a source of information about David Barton's qualifications except to demonstrate that there are people who disagree with him? Mourning Warbler Oct 12 08

The myth of the "Myth of Separation"

The myth of the "Myth of Separation". David Barton and his adherents begin their argument that the principle of church/state separation is a made-up doctrine foisted on America by an unprincipled Supreme Court[11] by pointing out the fact that those words do not appear in the text of the First Amendment. Indeed, Barton's book repeatedly states that most people believe those words are in the Constitution, as if to suggest that some grand conspiracy is preventing Americans from discovering what their Constitution actually says. Howvever, the absence of those words from the text of the Constitution is hardly proof that the doctrine of church-state separation is not constitutionally grounded. The Constitution doesn't use the words "fair trial" either, yet we certainly view that right as protected by the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. The First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ."[12] The text establishes two sharp demarcations between government and religion: government cannot establish religion, indeed it cannot even pass any law "respecting" (i.e., having anything to do with) an establishment of religion (the "establishment" clause); and government cannot interfere with anybody's practice of their religion (the "free exercise" clause). These two restrictions on government -- not to create, or establish, religion and not to interfere with individual religious freedom -- are appropriately summarized by the phrase "separation of church and state." Many conservative scholars argue that constitutional text must be interpreted in accordance with the "original intent" of the founders. While I have some problem with "original intent" as an exclusive vehicle of constitutional interpretation, even "original intent" jurisprudence provides an unambiguous basis for viewing absolute church/state separation as the intended operative effect of the First Amendment. The immediate historical genesis of the First Amendment was the battle which raged in the 1785-86 session of the Virginia legislature over whether to continue a tax levy for the support of the clergy. The leaders of the successful fight against the levy were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Madison argued eloquently in his classic "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments" that true religion did not require the state's support, and that society's interests demanded freedom for all in matters of belief: Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence that has convinced us.[13] Heeding Madison and Jefferson, the Virginia legislature not only abolished the religious levy, it even adopted the Bill for Religious Liberty which Jefferson authored.[14 Jefferson's Bill was unambiguous in its disavowal of state established religion, providing that "no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever . . . . "[15] As the Virginia legislative battle makes clear, Jefferson's Bill meant, literally no use of tax dollars in support of "any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever."[16] After the Constitution was drafted and ratified over the next two years, part of the first order of business for the Congress was fashioning a Bill of Rights, including a provision for religious freedom. Jefferson was absent in Europe and thus did not participate in the drafting of the Constitution, but he wrote back that his main disappointment with the document was its lack of a provision to secure religious liberty. The task of drafting that provision fell to Jefferson's Virginian ally, James Madison, who was the principal draftsman of the Constitution. On June 8, 1789, Madison offered this proposal for a constitutional amendment on religious liberty: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed."[17] This language was changed several times before it coalesced into the form adopted by the Congress and ultimately ratified as the First Amendment. But it is clear that Madison's intent, as expressed in his "Memorial and Remonstrance," was an amendment that made clear that "religion," or the "duty towards the Creator," must be "wholly exempt from [the] cognizance" of civil society.[18] Madison's later writings leave little doubt that he viewed the First Amendment as embodying the doctrine of church/state separation. In an undated essay probably written during Jefferson's presidency, Madison spoke of the "strongly guarded. . .separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." And in a letter dated March 2, 1819, Madison commented on the strength that American religion derived from "the total separation of the church from the state." [19] Perhaps the best known expression of the "original intent" of the First Amendment is contained in Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association. Addressing this religious group, Jefferson wrote: Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.[20] Jefferson has always been viewed as the single most important source of the meaning of the First Amendment; a unanimous opinion of the Supreme Court more than a hundred years ago described him as "the acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure" and described his Danbury letter as "an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."[21] The framers' writings leave no room for doubting that church/state separation was very much a part of their original intent. The Supreme Court noted this again nearly fifty years ago in reaffirming thE validity of Jefferson's metaphoric 'wall of separation:' The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. . . . No tax in any amount, large or small can be levied to support any activities or institutions whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.[22] Interestingly, it is Everson--which allowed state supported payments for busing to religious schools--that David Barton and his adherents excoriated for its role in fixing the concept of a wall of church/state separation in American jurisprudence.[23] But consider what the four Supreme Court Justices who dissented in Ever-son had to say about the First Amendment: "It was to create a complete and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority by comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for religion."[24] In 1947 it was the view of every justice of the Supreme Court (and this was not the "liberal" Warren Court of the 1960s) that the First Amendment establishes a firm policy of separation between government and religion--a view firmly grounded in the text of the First Amendment itself, in its historical circumstances, in the many contemporaneous writings of its framers, and in earlier decisions of the Supreme Court. The pronouncement in Everson that the constitution establishes a "wall of separation" between church and state was not new doctrine; it was an expression of what the First Amendment meant when it was adopted, and what it always had been understood to mean. Going beyond text and history, a variety of other arguments are advanced by Barton against the validity of the church/state separation doctrine. These arguments range from the technical[25] to the absurd.[26] It is not my purpose here to dissect or discredit each of those arguments, but they all proceed from flawed and highly selective readings of both text and history. For example, when Barton argues that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot be read to extend the applicability of the First Amendment to state governments, his book omits the critical text of the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that makes most of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, applicable to the states.[27] Barton's great concern over text apparently also does not make him wonder why the founders of this nation, most of them religious Christians, made no reference to Christianity in any of the nation's three seminal documents: the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Could it be that those men of faith were wise enough to recognize that both the nation and their own institutions of faith would best flourish if their affairs were kept separate? Probably the best refutation of Barton's argument simply is to quote his own exegesis of the First Amendment: "Today," Barton says, "we would best understand the actual context of the First Amendment by saying, 'Congress shall make no law establishing one Christian denomination as the national denomination.' "[28] In keeping with Barton's restated First Amendment, Congress could presumably make a law establishing all Christian denominations as the national religion, and each state could pass a law establishing a particular Christian church as its official religion. All of this pseudoscholarship would hardly be worth discussing, let alone disproving, wre it not for the fact that it is taken so very seriously by so many people. I was booed in Iowa when I mentioned church/state separation because I touched a raw nerve. Led by the firebrands of the "far right," millions apparently believe that a conspiracy involving some combination of the left, modern U.S. Supreme Courts, the Jewish element in the ACLU, homosexuals, non-believers, enemies of God, atheistic secular humanists, the antifamily movement, non-Christian people and atheistic people, and infidels has been unleashed to rape the Constitution and rape the churches by misinterpreting the First Amendment. There is, of course, no conspiracy--only a Constitution that provides, as it has for more than 200 years, that our government can neither establish religion nor interfere with its free exercise. But the virulent assault mounted today against that principle requires its defense not only on historical terms but also on utilitarian ones. Even as we are satisfied that church/state separation is well grounded in the text and intent of the First Amendment, an adequate defense of the principle requires us to refamiliarize ourselves with how we benefit as a nation--a nation of religious people--from the maintenance of the wall which separates church and state.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Specter is quoted concerning the First amendment, which, as he is at the very least a Lawyer who graduated from Yale, and a Senator, he is qualified to do. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead

WP:LEAD states:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any.

That Barton's work is controversial, criticised by a number of historians and is viewed by a number of people across the political spectrum as pseudohistory is a "notable controversy" and belongs in the lead. The 'Publications and critics' section is for the details of these criticisms. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

David Barton is primarily a teacher of American History. Wikipedia editors should be able to state this primary work of his life in as neutral way as possible. They need not agree with him. This fact (teacher/writer of American history, particularly of early American history) is missing from the lead paragraph and should be the first fact listed about him. He does have some current political opinions on his site (Wallbuilders) but he is primarily known for his history work, and sometimes even his current political views tie into his history work and research. One should be able to state this observable fact simply. Thus, the first paragraph fails the WP Lead quote above. Yet again, Wikipedia needs to work to maintain as neutral a tone as possible to summarize possibly controversial persons.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Many would argue that Barton's primary aim is polemic, not pedagogical -- that he 'teaches' a highly politicised and distorted 'history'. If you want to provide reliably sourced statements from experts in the field of historical education/the teaching of history who state otherwise, then this can change. The 'observable' fact appears to be that his claims have garnered little support from the "relevant academic community" so, per WP:FRINGE, we have an obligation to document this fact. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

POV

I just wrote a explanation on this talk page of why I added a POV tag to this article. My comments were not posted due to the wiki having maintenance work.

I would like this article to be checked for POV.

My main points were that Americans United for Separation of Church and State should be cited less or removed entirely and that I removed the Arlen Specter reference from the first paragraph, due to the fact that he is not a historian, as far as I know.

I think Americans United is not a historical organization.

Also, perhaps some of the boxed quotes could be merged into the text or removed.

Let me know your thoughts. Thanks! JBFrenchhorn (talk) 10:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And Sam Brownback is a historian and Time (magazine) is a historical journal? An objection was made to the bald (but most probably true) statement that Barton is a pseudohistorian, so the language was changed to notable commentators describing him as such. The Specter comments was in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, so is certainly WP:RS. Given that Barton has no qualifications as a historian whatsoever, I believe WP:FRINGE#Parity of sources applies. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

In your edit summary, you said that Specter is a prominent commentator. That is true. So is Anne Coulter. She has called Hillary Clinton a "congenital liar." Does that mean we should mention that in the lead of the Clinton article? "Clinton has been described by journalist and author Anne Coulter as a congenital liar." JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Coulter may be notable, but she's a chronically extremist and unreliable (in that her factual statements have been repeatedly proved inaccurate) source. Additionally, I doubt if the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, or even any respectable newspaper (even a conservative one), would publish her work these days. Her shrill hysteria has been relegated to the lunatic fringe. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a source for all of that? Incidentally, WorldNetDaily, does publish her work. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You can find this documented in her article. WorldNetDaily is the very epitome of the unreliable, extremist, lunatic fringe. I would doubt if anybody associated with it would be considered a reliable source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn is attempting to marginalize anyone, including David Barton, that he disagrees with. Most biographies on wikipedia try to set a neutral or slightly positive tone, especially in the lead. This includes controversial people, with many detractors. An example is Timothy Leary. No critical opinions about him are anywhere near the lead. Yet he could easily and honestly be called a drug addicted quack, with references to "prove" it. Hrafn even insists that Pseudohistorian (a pejorative opinion) be placed in front of any reference to Mr Barton's influence or popularity. I do not intend to be intellectually bullied by his multiple sourcing or his quoting WP guidelines that do not apply to what he is actually doing. Is it necessary to analyze & debate everything Barton has ever written and said, in this wikipedia article and talk section to arrive at an approximately accurate article? Would it be readable? Walkingcod —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkingcod (talk • contribs) 02:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Walkingcod: read WP:DUE & WP:V. To paraphrase an old legal adage: "if the sources are on your side pound the sources, if policy is on your side pound the policy, when neither is on your side pound the table." You have admitted that I have sources and policy on my side, so this rant of yours is simply you 'pounding the table'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn: You are attempting to marginalize me by stating that I have admitted to having no substance. This is your typical presumption. I have a life, But if you want pounding of sources, and of policy, I will give it. It will not be done quickly, but as my time permits. In the end, this will probably not satisfy you, as you stated earlier only unsympathetic material will be acceptable, and you will deem anything, including the writings of the Founding Fathers as sympathetic and biased. Yours is a minority view WP:DUE as Mr Barton has far more supporters than detractors, but if you are living in a cloistered world you might not know that. Walkingcod p.s. I readily admit that Barton, like everyone who has done significant amount of writing, has had factual errors, and I disagree with some of his opinions, but perfection is not the standard for a reliable source. If it was, everyone is a fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walkingcod (talk • contribs) 22:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I never stated that "only unsympathetic material will be acceptable, and [I] will deem anything, including the writings of the Founding Fathers as sympathetic and biased."
2. WP:DUE weights by WP:RS opinion (and thus gives weight to expert scholarly opinion), not the adulation of the ignorant masses.
3. Barton's misdeeds go well beyond a few "factual errors". An egregious example is given in the article: he lied about what Jefferson said in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, then LIED ABOUT LYING ABOUT IT.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Censorship and Bias POV

This article is extremely biased and has been repeatedly censored by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hrafn. Has anyone gone through Wiki arbitration for this page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.47.136 (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Cutting the "Confirmed Quotes" section

Yes. There is a lot of cutting of factual information to leave kind of a fluffy article without much substance. -- Mourning Warbler Oct 12 08

Here's the relevant section removed:

Confirmed quotes

Following are several quotations, which have been confirmed and represent the Biblical foundation of the United States of America.

John Adams, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

John Quincy Adams, SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE.

"In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity."

First off, the title sounds like a POINTy response to the "Unconfirmed quotes" section following. That's in addition to the section being original research on what these quotes represent. If it's to be included at all (that is, if it's normal to argue for a biographical subject's work on a biography page, a point of which I'm not entirely convinced) it should be written to make clear that it's Barton's take on the subject, not Wikipedia's. Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Enough bullying

Aunt Entropy, et al.: Enough bullying!!! To say that David Barton is not accredited is one thing, but to say he knows nothing about American history is absurd. Would you likewise consider Bill Gates, Steven Jobs, and Dean Kaymen to be pseudoscientists or pseudoinventors? - Oct 9 '08 - Mourning Warbler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mourning Warbler (talk • contribs) 05:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, I'm not bullying, but following wikipedia policy. All qualifying statements on Biographies of Living Persons MUST be sourced.

If your addition is that evident, surely it shouldn't be a problem for you to source it. But policy is clear: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"; bold in original. In other words, you need to find a source before you consider adding it again. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Oct 13 08 The sourcing is there. What kind of sourcing are you looking for? David Barton has studied original source documents for decades. Would you like me to source about Kean Kaymen and Bill gates and Steven Jobs and Raymond Bradbury and all the other people we can think of who dropped out of college but are not considered "pseudo-writers" or "pseudo-inventors"? Mourning Warbler (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Attempted POV rewrite

This lead sentence:

"David Barton (born 1954) is known for reminding American audiences that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the United States Constitution."

is completely unacceptable. This is not Conservapedia. And removing criticism from the lead is also unacceptable.

It's one thing to add information to the biography, that is sourced. But rewriting the lead to whitewash the subject will not fly. Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Oct 13 08 This lead sentence is what Barton is known for. Are you saying "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution? You would be correct if you are speaking of the Constitution of the former Union of Soviet Socialists Republic. But it's not in the American Constitution. I absolutely did source it; click and read the Constitution. Mourning Warbler (talk) 05:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The source that's needed is the one that says Barton is known for "reminding" Americans about the 1st Amendment. Most sources I've seen describe him as a writer, IIRC. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was known for putting forward that idea that the Establishment Clause should not be interpreted to separate church and state the way that some people argue it separates them. Also, who knows him for that? Surely after publishing multiple books he's known for something more significant than reminding people to read the text that they are talking about?

Also, can you please make your arguments on this talk page instead of in the edit summaries? It is unreasonable to attempt to carry on a discussion with one line article edits. Bhimaji (talk) 00:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted this change again.[8] The last edits were not neutral and inconsistent with this encyclopedia's standards. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion For External Link to Review of "Original Intent"

Would like to suggest an external link to a review of "Original Intent" at http://www.america-betrayed-1787.com/david-barton.html. What is the procedure for getting approval for such a review?Tmarkets (talk) 19:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

That does not appear to be a review of the book as much as a polemic about what government should be:

"It is in fact the most critical function of the government to ensure that it’s officials are committed to Christ and the Christian religion."

The review compares Barton's views with those of the web site author(s). Nothing that I have seen leads me to believe that this web site is a reliable source with an NPOV.

I don't think that this review should be linked from this article. Bhimaji (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:EL, we only link to blogs in rare circumstances. Linking to blogs from 3rd parties in a biography of a living person is especially rare. This link wouldn't qualify. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Mourning Warbler

November 7 08 - Recently I made an error in the edit; it did not revert automatically as I had thought it would. I corrected some distortions and clarified Barton's beef with the way people sling around the phrase "separation of church and state" as if it were in the Constitution. I'm going to put it back now. Then I will be said to be having an "edit war". Then someone will block me because they disagree with David Barton. Mourning Warbler (talk)

(Moved comment from the top of the article where it was likely to get lost) Bhimaji (talk) 21:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Mourning Warbler, still you are editing against consensus. You need to convince the other wiki editors your edits are valid instead of just blindly forging on with your major edits. They will continue to be reverted unless you gain consensus on your edits. You need to work with us, not against us. Wikipedia is not a battleground. This is a place where different editors with different points of view can hash out a consensus. It's been done on numerous controversial subjects before and there's no reason that can't be done on this one as well. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Texas Monthly

The quote from Texas Monthly cannot be verified as it is a subscription only article and the part referenced requires a subscription. Please provide a more open, verifiable source as per Wikipedia's policies re. an article about a living person. (Blakeslee, Nate (2006-09). "King Of the Christocrats". Texas Monthly 34) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankscorl (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course it can be verified. One must simply have a subscription. Books are generally better references for most subjects than any periodical, but they cannot be verified unless you have access to the book. That you, personally, do not have access does not render the book or periodical a poor source. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I subscribed to this (free!) and found that the Texas Monthly author actually lists some positives about Barton too, regarding his "increasing legitimacy" despite early "gaffes" as he calls them in the article. He references Bartons' article published in the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, Volume XVII Issue No. 2, 2003, p. 399, so I posted that under the other favorable quote and revised "no" to "little" academic acceptance. Bankscorl (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Article is Extremely Biased Against Barton

Earlier today, I went onto Wikipedia to read what I was expecting to be a relatively fair and balanced biography of David Barton, as he has been featured on the Glenn Beck program (which, just as a disclaimer, is one of my favorite shows) a number of times recently. Instead, what I got was essentially a long hit-piece against Barton that looked like it could have come straight from a left-wing magazine or blog. Some of the horrendously slanderous and likely misleading content that I noticed included:

• An implication that Barton is a white supremacist and a Neo-Nazi in the lead sentence. Although Barton did apparently speak at a function that was organized by a white supremacist minister in the early 1990s, the implicit claim that he is a racist is dubious at best, as Barton has written several articles on his website, Wallbuilders.com, that include positive references to the Jewish people and because he has been been routinely invited as a guest on the Glenn Beck program (which, as you would probably know if you ever watched the show, is highly critical of fascism, Nazism, and white supremacy in general). Even if Barton's brief involvement with the white supremacist church is noteworthy, the fact definately doesn't belong in the lead sentence, as this is not the primary thing that he's known for.
• A sentence in the lead paragraph which claims that he intentionally forged several quotes from the founding fathers, which not only seems unneccessary to include in the intro but also gives the impression that most of his work is a fraudulent sham.
• A claim in the "Early Life" section that Barton is not academically qualified to be a historian. Even if he graduated with a degree in religious studies rather than history, that doesn't mean that he still can't be a legitimate historian. After all, people who are self-educated in the study of the past can sometimes be just as intelligent & knowledgedble as those who have a masters degree in history. Besides, even though it is presented as solid truth, the notion that Barton is academically unqualified to be a historian is opinion, not fact (which, of course, is unencyclopedic).
• A catagory tag that labelled Barton as a white nationalist, which is very libellous and almost certainly untrue.

Shortly after reading the article, I added a "Neutrality of this Article is Disputed" tag and revised much of the article (especially the lead paragraph) in an attempt to make it more neutral. However, even though I removed the most inflammatory and dubious statements about Barton, I do understand that he is still a very controversial figure, so I left most of the basic criticisms themselves intact. Nevertheless, if anyone seriously disagrees with my changes, please put forward your reasoning here before or immediately after you make your edits. I plan on watching this article very closely over the next few weeks and I will revert any blatant & inaccurate bias against Barton that I spot in the article. I do not seek to start an edit war here, but I would like for this issue to be settled in a civil and relatively even-handed way. Kaiser Taylor (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This is getting silly. The man is controversial, so what? That doesn't make him a bad person, or necessarily wrong in what he says. Wiki is not here to judge those questions, just document. To describe him as controversial in no way amounts to demeans him, and explaining his theories and the objections thereto is only appropriate. We're not here to judge the validity of his arguments, so stop using this as a forum to do so. Uberhill 17:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberhill (talk • contribs)

Uberhill, in order to clarify things, I do understand that David Barton is a controversial figure and that there are many people who are critical of his viewpoints & historical credentials. However, the problem with the article before I made my edits is that many of the negative statements about Barton were either blatantly false (such as the assertion that he is a white supremacist), highly misleading, or were unneccessarily critical of him. All of these issues, of course, are a clear violation of Wikipedia's editing policies; especially NPOV. Consequently, I felt obliged to clean up this article and to remove the most slanderous statements against Barton. However, as I already stated, I know that many people strongly disagree with this man's opinions, so, in spite of my conservative leanings, I didn't remove any legitimate critisisms against Barton. For that matter, ever since I made my edits, this article has actually become less critical of Barton than the version that I initially created! To put it simply, while I understand and respect the points that you make in your post, all I was trying to do was to remove the obvious lies about Barton and to make this article more encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiser Taylor (talk • contribs) 08:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality still a problem?

Is the neutrality of the article still in dispute? If not, someone should remove that banner. If so, please clarify the current problem. -- BTfromLA (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It looks much better than it did in the past, thanks. 68.227.169.133 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody seems to object, I will remove that banner. BTfromLA (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I think there's still room for improvement.75.81.204.244 (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Danbury Baptist Letter

This portion of the article is confusing me. It says that Barton is saying one thing in one place, and another thing in one of his videos, yet both sentences seem to be saying the same thing – that Barton is claiming the Danbury Baptist letter refers to a "one-way" wall of separation between Church and State, whereby the State cannot interfere in Church matters but the Church can influence the State. Can someone please clarify what the contradiction appears to be, and if needed rewrite this section? Quidam65 (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That passage originally made sense, but became garbled with editing. I've restored an older version. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

A Slanted Article

I notice that not only my effort to balance the article has been deleted, but even my comment here in the discussion section. It is typical of the totalitarian left (the university and "mainstream" media crowd) to think you can destroy the truth by pressing "delete". It will not work - trying to smear David Barton as a racist is utterly absurd. The man has worked for many years to break down racial and ethnic divisions (indeed he regards it as his religious duty to do so). In fact it is difficult to think of anyone who has worked harder to bring to public attention not only the life and work of black Patriots in the American Revolutionary period, but also the live and work of black people involved in the pro freedom side of the political divide from the 19th century right to modern times.91.107.99.75 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I moved your comment to the bottom of this section, which is where such comments are supposed to go according to proper Wikipedia guidelines. The only reason that I'm not moving this comment immediately, is because you seem incapable of actually figuring this out. Furthermore, I will continue to undo any IMPROPER edits that you make to the article page. You cannot just add un-cited OPINION to the article. This is not your private message board. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This article about author David Barton needs to be cleaned up and have several sections deleted. It is written like a political opinion editorial, not like an encyclopedia article.

In the introduction it is mentioned that "critics dispute the accuracy..." with references to other articles written by politicians or political publications. Later it is stated, "many historians dismiss his thinking..." It should say, rather, that his work is controversial and provide links to other articles on both sides of the issue.

The article refers to David Barton with several emotionally-loaded descriptions, such as, "Christian nationalist," "Revisionist historian," "pseudoscholarship" "Christian Reconstructionist Group," "Far-right Christian Identity," "the religious right." The presence of this kind of language shows that the article was written with the intent of coloring the reader's opinion, not with the intent of making information available.

That the intention of the article is to attack Barton is shown in the sentence, "Barton holds no formal credentials in history or law,..." But the sentence continues with "and critics dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history, accusing him of practicing misleading historical revisionism and "pseudoscholarship," with the aforementioned references to political publications. The writer is trying to attack Barton as an uneducated layperson speaking and writing on an academic subject--in other words, that he is pretender. We all know that having knowledge does not necessarily require having an academic degree. There are examples of this in history, a few of which would be physicist Michael Faraday and mathematician George Green. It would seem that not having a degree does not prevent one from making important contributions to human knowledge. If Barton doesn't have a degree, then that is fact we should know. It may decrease, or increase, our respect for him. But in this instance it is clearly meant as an attack on Barton.

One paragraph is comprised entirely of the sentence, "Barton is a lecturer for Glenn Beck's online Beck University." So? Should this paragraph not be moved and incorporated in some other list of Barton's achievements? Evidently, this single, simple sentence is supposed to speak for itself. There would seem to be no other purpose for this sentence than to highlight an association between Barton and Beck. Is that good or bad? And if this is either good or bad, then why?

The article concludes with an outright negative, opinionated accusation against Barton. The statement by Rev. Randolph Bracy of the NAACP does not stand on its own, as the NAACP is a political organization, and such statements are typical between political factions. That "Barton has "a long history of being related to the worst fringes of our society," is backed up with a reference to a political publication. If this last paragraph can be supported with facts then it should be the subject of an article by itself. The phrase "the worst fringes of society" could mean anything. But a casual glance shows it to be a personal attack on Barton. This paragraph should be deleted.

This article needs to be entirely rewritten from a neutral point of view, or deleted. We all view Wikipedia as a source of fact, like an encyclopedia. A person whose only purpose is to attack another individual should not be allowed to use Wikipedia as there own political opinion column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex777ander (talk • contribs) 20:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The article also includes "outright [positive], opinionated [praise of] Barton" by "political" figures such as Sam Brownback. If you can find prominent praise of him in scholarly sources, you are welcome to include it to balance the negative scholarly opinion. As it stands, the consensus scholarly opinion (which Wikipedia's NPOV policy requires it to give WP:DUE weight to) is that Barton distorts history to give ammunition for his political and religious causes. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I second Hrafn's comments. By the way, the professionalization of various disciplines has developed quite a lot in the two hundred years since Faraday and George Green. While, obviously, anybody can write about any topic, there is such a thing as a professional, trained historian and Barton, who represents himself as an historian or an "expert," is not one of those. I'm not aware of even one historian trained by an accredited university, subject as they all are to standards of intellectual honesty, who endorses Barton's writings, even among those who are politically aligned with him. -- BTfromLA (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

A slanted history

Although WP:SPS & thus not suitable as a source for a WP:BLP, Chris Rodda's Liars for Jesus has a series of posts rebutting Barton's claims on Beck's show (under the title 'The "No, Mr. Beck" Series'), which provides a useful background to this controversy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:27, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a political editorial, regardless whether you have included some minimal, half-hearted "praise." The controversy surrounding Barton can be handled in a neutral manner, not with the kind of language, the diction, expressed in this article. Your article belongs on a political blog site, not an encyclopedia. The last paragraph reveals the writer's motivations clearly, and does not qualify as "scholarly" by any example I've ever seen. It is intended as a smear.

As for "there is such a thing as a professional, trained historian," I can see that this writer has a high esteem for the academy. Evidently, he or she believes that a professor should be entitled to make statements accepted as pronouncements merely because of their profession. I recall a logical fallacy from the subject of inductive logic called "Appeal to Authority" which fits this situation exactly. Being a professional may lend a higher probability of being right, but the force of their contribution must come from the facts they have at their disposal, not merely from a judgmental statement. And professionals can have bias like anyone else. Could it be that Barton is making such an argument? I suspect this is where the emotion in this article originates. I understand the academic profession, and my view on Faraday and Green has developed because of my acquaintance with academic physics in the late twentieth century. The biggest embarrassment for any professional is to take themselves too seriously, to overestimate who they are in our society. For knowledge is vast, the world is large, and we may not know as much as we think we do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex777ander (talk • contribs) 18:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "last paragraph" you are referring to. Perhaps your energies would be more productively spent if you were to propose specific improvements to the article, rather than simply impugning the motives of the editors who have worked on it. As to this aside about professionalism, do I take it that if someone is on TV calling himself Professor Jones, an expert theoretical physicist who has made discoveries about the nature of the universe that contradict established knowledge, you believe that the Wikipedia article about him should omit the facts that Jones is neither a Professor at any accredited institution, nor has he ever had any formal training in physics? -- BTfromLA (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Given that Glen Beck's trotting out of Barton is pure "Appeal to Authority", and that Chris Rodda demonstrates in the link cited above (without any appeal to authority whatsoever) that Barton is lying through his teeth, your claims are hilariously WP:POT. But as far as what can, and can't, be presented on a Wikipedia article, please read WP:NPOV (particularly the sections on WP:DUE & WP:GEVAL), WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

How many "last paragraphs" are there in an article?

Professional titles are irrelevant. I can tell how much a theoretical physicist knows by listening to him. This is a subject that you and I can debate forever. The attribution of "expert" is made subjectively, and it is not bestowed institutionally upon obtaining a professorship.

I have read the WK:NPOV, and it would seem that you have overlooked several guidelines, in particular, "Describes disputes, but not engage in them," and "Impartial Tone." And I pointed clearly to those instances in the article in my discussion above. This discussion page has brought into the open the underlying motivations of the authors of the article. There is now no question about the intent of the article. Nor have the authors succeeded, if they have even tried, to conceal their intent. No one is fooled. Few people will read the article and think that these writers are impartial "experts" coming to the rescue of a gullible public. If Wikipedia policy allows its resources to be used for opinion pages then I stand corrected. Then, at least, the article should be renamed. The current title, "David Barton (author)" gives the misleading impression that the article is a general biography, which it is not. The title could be changed to "That Liar, David Barton," or "David Barton the Faker," which more clearly reveals the content of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.217.204 (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

1. Professional expertise is relevant, per WP:RS.
2. The article does 'describe disputes' -- Barton makes a large number of historical claims, and historical scholars and other prominent figures dispute them.
3. Wikipedia gives WP:DUE weight to the balance of expert opinions, which on the issue of Barton's claims is thoroughly negative.
4. The article is named according to WP:Disambiguation.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 15:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, 68.228.217.204, if you have concerns about the article, why not propose some specific improvements to the text? As it happens, I agree that "reception... " section is poorly organized. However, if you are suggesting that Barton's interpretations of American history should be treated with unquestioned respect, you are overlooking the glaring fact that Barton's practice has been greeted with near-universal denunciation as dishonest by those experts in the fields in which he treads who have paid him any mind, and by journalists and non-academics, too: Chris Rodda, who Hrafn mentioned, is a completely self-taught student of history, with no degrees, unaffiliated with any institution. Feel free to sneer at the expertise of PhD-holding historians, but as Hrafn points out above, Wikipedia, as a matter of policy, treats them as an experts in their fields of specialization and gives due weight to the preponderance of expert opinion. The fact is that Barton is known to distort his historical tales to support his personal political views, and even to fabricate evidence out of whole cloth; saying as much on a talk page is not evidence of a conspiracy to "smear" Barton: this is simply the problem editors are faced with when trying to write encyclopedically about the guy. Similar problems come up when writing about someone like Kent "Dr. Dino" Hovind: he certainly has his followers, but virtually no respectable scientist or science writer finds his claims about biological evolution remotely credible, and the Wikipedians' task is to clearly reflect that fact, while retaining encyclopedic neutrality. Not that easy to do. -- BTfromLA (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the below. The article is a hit piece (one long smear) it even contradicts itself - claiming at one point that Barton hates all nonChristians (indeed would not even allow them to serve in elected positions) and then attacking Barton for suggesting that a Congressman he greatly admires may have been a Muslim.

Whatever one thinks of Barton's theology, his reading of the original documents of the Founding era is very extensive. No evidence is presented in the article that any of his critics have anything like the knowledge of the origninal documents that he has. As for claims that he is a racist (and so on) this is just utterly absurd - the man has worked (for decades) in ANTIracist political activity.91.107.79.200 (talk) 13:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I moved your comment to the bottom of the section, where it belongs. Please do not mess with general discussion page formatting conventions, as this makes it difficult for others to follow the conversations. Furthermore, Barton's appearance as a speaker at a racist organization is certainly worthy of mention, and is well-documented. Regarding your absurd contention that this is a "hit piece," well...frankly, the article is FAR more impartial than I really would expect for one regarding a man who shows almost as much contempt for academic scholarship as he does for the Constitution of the United States of America. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, after reviewing your edits, I've reversed most of them. Wikipedia is not a place where you just comment on issues with which you disagree by just noting, "Uh-uh. You're wrong!" You have to present citations to prove your positions, and you have not done so. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous, Un-sourced Editing

It looks like we have someone logging in from multiple IPs to keep removing well-documented information and other nonsense. I had a feeling that his recent appearances would bring out his legions of sycophants. Keep a watch on this. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

If it continues, we might wish to consider semi-protection for a few days. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Great. Now we've got some more partisans trying to pass him off as a real "historian." Sorry, but "writer, activist" is the only NON-partisan way to describe him in the info box. The word "historian" cannot be used without qualification, such as "self-taught," "uncredentialed," or "pseudo-," so leaving it as such is the best way to achieve some form of neutrality. I personally feel that he should be treated like a Holocaust Denier, but I've been able to reign in my personal feelings enough to just put, "writer, activist" instead of "flagrant propagandist liar" or something...and the Christian Nationalists making these edits should attempt to keep a similar amount of neutrality when editing. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Way to expose your POV, Bryonmorrigan...at least be subtle about it. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:25, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm being HONEST, and pointing out why I'm not INJECTING that POV into the editing, as you are doing, since it's pretty easy to discern yours from looking at your profile. If you are going to insist on calling Mr. Fake Historian a "historian," using that reference, then I'm going to add the qualification from the article. Anything else is blatant POV. He is not a professional "historian" any more than a "self taught" quack is a "medical doctor." Bryonmorrigan (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. The adjective "self-taught" is often associated with those of "amateur" and "unqualified". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan, you called him a "Holocaust denier" and "flagrant propagandist liar" and then called me and others "Christian nationalists". Aside from the fact that it doesn't make any sense, your frantic message is anything but honest. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Everyone has opinions. I clearly stated mine...on the TALK PAGE...to show that my edits are not influenced by my opinions (which largely come from the fact that, unlike Barton, I AM qualified to teach history). My edit in regards to the description of Barton as a "writer, activist" or "self-taught historian" instead of simply "historian," is as neutral as possible. We all have biases, but the only person showing those biases on the article's page is you. Even the article itself is titled "David Barton (Author)," which is perfectly in line with my "writer, activist" edit. And for the record, I didn't call him a "Holocaust Denier," though I said he should be treated like one...since his "theories" are just as absurd and based on half-truths and deliberate distortions. However, you'll notice in the article that he certainly has been called such by other people, and that he certainly has spoken at Neo-Nazi and Holocaust Denial functions. Finally, your own profile "outs" you as a "Christian Nationalist," so the shoe fits. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop with the frantic comments, it doesn't help anything. Keep your opinions about him to yourself. And I don't even know what a Christian Nationalist is. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Christian nationalism Tell me I'm wrong. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And I see now that a Right-Wing Extremist editor is going to try and delete all criticism. Charming. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

For The Record: Why Barton Should Not Be Called A "Historian"

(I didn't want to clutter up the RfC below with this long issue...so I'm putting it here, since it needs to be pointed out...)

There is another reason that Barton should not be referred to as a "historian," which is in addition to, and indirectly because of, his lack of any credentials in the field. You see, as someone who has indeed studied history academically (I have an MA in history, and am working on my PhD...), I happen to know what I'm talking about. When you study history in college, and especially in graduate school, you have to learn basic skills regarding research and making your case. You have to learn how to properly document your sources, prove that your sources are valid, and submit your work to the peer-review process. [9] Barton's book, "The Myth of Separation" is a perfect example of what happens when you do NOT do these things. Now, some of the Barton partisans are probably thinking I'm just making this up...but Barton has essentially ADMITTED this. Earlier versions of the book contained a huge amount of alleged quotations from the Founding Fathers...many of which were exposed (by REAL historians) as being completely bogus falsifications. In fact, Barton addresses these quotations on the WallBuilders website here [10], though instead of "fake" he calls them "unconfirmed." Sorry, but reputable historians do not rely on quotations like that, whether deliberate fakes, or simply "unconfirmed" evidence obtained without any proof that they were not simply made up out of thin air in recent years. In the age of the Internet, it is more important than ever that people who present controversial historical issues rely only upon documented, unassailable facts, rather than simply Googling for quotes and not checking whether they are forgeries or incorrectly attributed. Obviously, Barton never learned these skills, because he has no academic background in the subject. There's more to getting a doctorate in history than simply learning names and dates. It is a profession that requires more than that. Just as you cannot learn to be a surgeon simply by reading "Gray's Anatomy," one cannot learn to be a proper historian simply by reading history books. There's more to it than that.

Furthermore, by "legitimizing" him with the term "historian," you not only degrade the profession, but you also confuse the public. Most of the time, when you see the word "historian" used in reference to someone, you just assume that the person has a doctorate in history, and/or is a professor of such. It lends credibility to his research and opinions. As someone brought up David Irving, that's another great example of the word "historian" being used to great disservice. When reading about his trial and other controversies in the news, reporters always referred to him as a "historian," and I foolishly assumed that it meant he had an education in the subject. I figured that he had simply let his Right-Wing ideology cloud his judgement into making excuses for the Nazis, but since none of the news articles that I read questioned his credentials, I never realized that he doesn't even have a degree in ANYTHING. He just has a high school diploma. That's it. I was shocked. Why was this not addressed in the media? But Irving was allowed to continue peddling his fawning admiration for Hitler and denial of the Holocaust into books that were published by major companies like William Morrow and Avon, and easily-found at Borders and Barnes & Noble, because people seemed to just "assume" he knew what he was writing about. And frankly, Irving and Barton make the same mistakes...and for the same reasons: They are both amateurs seeking to "prove" an ideological opinion. They ignore the evidence that disproves their theories, and exalt that which seems to "prove" theirs...no matter how spurious or absurd.

And that is why it is not just incorrect to refer to Barton as a "historian"...but also dangerous. And furthermore, precedent is on my side, as David Irving's infobox refers to him simply as a "writer," which is as it should be. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 12:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Publish this in a reliable source and we can consider it. Otherwise, since this is a WP:BLP we'll have to go with what the reliable sources say. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Your source does not say what you think it says. It qualifies the word "historian," and does not use the term without qualification. As noted by others, it is POV to conclude that "self taught historian" is the same as simply "historian," any more than "amateur astronomer" is the same as "astronomer," or "unlicensed physician" is the same as "physician." My note above is well-documented, and everything that I stated is easily verified. If you could prove me wrong, you would...but you can't.

Furthermore, my point is backed up with the opinions of other reputable, professional historians. For example, John Fea [11], Associate Professor of American History at the very Conservative Christian Messiah College, writes: "Barton claims to be a historian. He is not. He has just enough historical knowledge, and just enough charisma, to be very dangerous." [12] Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to "self-taught historian" if consensus is against simply historian. That's why I opened an RfC below. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)