This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Politics and Government C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Texas Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas. Conservatism Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template:Rfcid

Should he be labeled a historian in the infobox as per this New York Times article? NYyankees51 (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, because a "self-taught historian" is not a qualified historian, and therefore is not qualified to practice as such as an "occupation". This point is further emphasised by widespread criticism of his work from the historical community. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 14:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, because as noted above, he has no qualifications, education, or other professional credentials in history. The article from the New York Times above clearly qualifies the word "historian" with "self-taught," points out that he only has a degree in "Christian education," and notes that professional historians largely consider him to be a "biased amateur." He would not even be qualified to even teach history in a public high school, so the idea that he is a professional "historian" is ludicrous. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]