Talk:David Barton (author)/Archive 2

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


 * 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. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would further note that the source for "self-taught historian" also calls him a "biased amateur". Should we also include that in his occupation parameter? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Support No claim is being made that he is qualified, nor holds any credentials. In fact, "occupation" can refer to career, profession or even vocation. Career probably doesn't apply. And we're all in agreement he isn't a professional historian. However, a vocation is a "term for an occupation to which a person is specially drawn," and from the disamb " an occupation pursued more for altruistic benefit rather than for income." He is drawn to history. So the infobox should reflect this. Lionel (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Wandered over here from the related ANI thread (which I'm not going to comment on). The man is, among other things, a historian. Whether his "qualifications" are or aren't sufficient to make him a public school history teacher is entirely beside the point, as is whether or not other historians consider him a "biased amateur." Referring to him as a "self-taught Historian" in his infobox almost reads like sarcastic derision. Call him a historian, and let people reading the article judge his worth. I read the article, and judge him to be not exactly somebody I'd trust to tell me about history, but that doesn't make him not a historian. Either way, "self-taught historian" simply can't stay. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  00:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Split I maintain that "self-taught historian" must go, as it seems vaguely derisory to me, but I'm in total agreement with the "writer, activist" compromise that seems to be popping up and suggested as a good idea by Will Beback, KillerChihuahua, and Bryonmorrigan. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  18:15, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Support, per Lionelt and Ginsengbomb. The "self-taught" phrase needs to come out of the intro. Cla68 (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Split. The subject's notability concerns his activism on historical topics. Rather than "historian" I'd be inclined if original research were allowed, to call him a "history activist". However failing that we should use whichever term appears most frequently in independent secondary sources. This same issue came up with the David Irving, another self-taught historian. the consensus found at that article is "...an English writer specializing in the military history of World War II." A similar formula here would be something like "...an American writer and activist specializing in the early history of the U.S. government."   Will Beback    talk    01:48, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I still think that my original edit changing "historian" to "writer, activist" is the most neutral and non-POV way to state the issue. Putting simply "historian" is POV.  And for the record, there are many MORE similarities between Irving and Barton, as can be seen by looking at the article (if pro-Barton partisans haven't removed it all by the time you read this...).  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 02:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Well, I disagree that calling him a historian is somehow pushing a POV. That said, and speaking as a completely impartial observer here (I had no idea who Mr. Barton was before stumbling on this discussion), I think "writer, activist" might be an effective compromise. It's clearly better than the vaguely derisory "self-taught historian," and if calling him a "historian" is ruffling a few feathers then "writer, activist" should suffice, assuming that it is accurate and supported by sources. Any other thoughts from the choir? Frankly, I'd support making the change right now, so long as there's at least one more person in agreement. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  18:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

--BTfromLA (talk) 06:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No Not without qualification. He is not a credentialed or recognized historian; in order to be accurate, something I generally find to be desired, we must qualify with "self-taught" or "self-proclaimed" or something similar. For those who feel "self-taught" is undesirable, I support Will Beback's suggestion of "...an American writer and activist specializing in the early history of the U.S. government." KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. No scholarly credentials = no label of historian. Other constructions could be used, such as history writer, etc. Binksternet 19:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I would say. There are three criteria for being called a "historian", I would think: 1) an advanced degree in history from a reputable university; 2) employment as a historian - typically this would be as a professor of history at a reputable university or college (although there are some other employments that would qualify a person as a historian, such as working for the Smithsonian or whatever), and 3) performing historical research and writing. Of these, the first two would be much the most important, as a lot of people are interested in history and do research and writing as a hobby. But if the person's research and writing is of high quality and shows a good grasp of the principles of the discipline of "historian" (and there's a lot more to it than just untutored analysis of stuff that happened in the past), then maybe. But Barton doesn't seem to meet this level of quality. Sure, the NYTimes called him a "historian", sort of... but not really. First of all, it was "self-taught historian" which is rather different (many people (including perhaps Erik Eckholm) are of the general idea that if you write about stuff that happened in the past you are a historian, but it's not that simple, and while "self-taught historian" is not impossible it is, like "self-taught doctor", rather unlikely) and second of all it's really just a throwaway comment and not part of a considered analysis of what it is he really does. Herostratus (talk) 03:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No. "Writer, activist," (maybe with the addition of "Christian evangelist") is sufficient for the infobox.  As to the lede of the article, since his involvement with American History is spelled out in the next few sentences, we could lose any mention of "historian" in the first sentence without creating confusion.  Clearly, he should never be presented as an historian without a qualifier; he does not meet the formal qualifications of a professional historian, nor is he an autodidact whose work is widely respected by professional historians--quite the opposite.

Evolution v Creation
I don't think the section called "Darwin statement" merits inclusion, though maybe there can be a mention of this claim of Barton's somewhere. Barton actually makes no statement about Darwin... he says something to the effect that the Founders had settled the E vs. C debate "as far as they were concerned." Ideas that have to do with evolution of living things long preceded Darwin's theory, which was a great breakthrough not because he came up with the concept of evolution, but because he identified the mechanisms by which evolution had occurred (at least that's my layman's understanding). Barton seems to suggest that there's nothing fundamentally different about views of evolution now compared to the eighteenth century, a dubious claim. But he nowhere says the founders considered Darwin's theory, which is of course impossible. -- BTfromLA (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If you watch the YouTube video in the article, where Barton makes the statement, the full statement is, "Everybody thinks that's a new debate in the 60s, 'cause that's when the Court ruled on it...in '68. Well, you go back to Darwin, that's not even a new debate, because you go back to the Founding Fathers, as far as they were concerned, they'd already had the entire debate over creation and evolution, and you get Thomas Paine, who is the least religious Founding Father, saying you've got to teach Creation science in the classroom. Scientific method demands that!"  I would have used the full YouTube quote, but for some reason, the people here at Wikipedia refuse to allow YT videos to be used as citations, and you instead have to rely on articles referencing the statements which can be found on YT.  But if you listen to the full quote, as transcribed above, he clearly mentions Darwin by name. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your quote proves BTfromLA's point - Barton said evolution was not a new debate when Darwin came around; the debate already existed. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it proves that Barton incorrectly thought that Darwin's theory had been debated and settled by the Founding Fathers, which is hilariously wrong. Furthermore, that's just the part of the statement latched on to by the press...  The rest of it is easily-debunked as well, since Thomas Paine was not the "least religious" anything.  He was very religious...just very devoted to Deism, rather than Christianity, which he loathed.  But then, Barton has argued previously that he doesn't believe that anything except "Biblical Monotheism" should be considered a "religion" previously...so it's just another example of his ridiculously Christian Supremacist weltanschauung.  Finally, Paine did NOT advocated teaching "Creationism" in schools, but rather the idea that there was a deity responsible for the first cause.  As far as "Creationism," he wrote the following in The Age of Reason: "Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange believe that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies."  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) OK, he mentioned Darwin, but my point remains. He is not claiming that the founding fathers pondered Darwin's theory when "they'd already had the entire debate."  He's trying to suggest that Darwin (and the "new debate in the 60s") has offered nothing significant to the discussion; it's just the same old argument, and wiser heads than ours have determined creationism is scientific, or some such.  I think that's an absurd dismissal of two centuries of scientific thought, plus it is a gaffe to place "creation science"--a 20th century invention--in the 18th century, but he doesn't make a claim about the founders considering Darwin.  --BTfromLA (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The event seems notable. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 20:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are all blogs from his typical critics. We can't add everything they've scrutinized unless there's something particularly important, and in this case there isn't. We'd need a whole new article if we included everything like this. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He pretends to be a "historian," and then frequently makes public statements regarding history that are patently false, and easily debunked. That is by definition, "notable," especially when so many people on the Internet are commenting about it.  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If we used that standard, we'd have massive articles such as "[Liberal/Conservative] bloggers' criticisms of [David Barton/Glenn Beck/Keith Olbermann/Barack Obama/Rachel Maddow/Bill O'Reilly/other commentator or politician]". That would be an awful mess. Not every criticism is notable, and apparently this isn't either, see lack of mainstream news sources. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The issue about Darwin aside, we need to find a way to present some of Barton's more extraordinary claims along with sources that address them critically, without turning the article into an endless concatenation of he-said-they-said sections, one for every Bartonism (imagine the length of that!). Perhaps a small number of Barton's most prominent themes—wall of separation, Christianity in the schools, religiosity of the founders—could become the themes of sections in which examples of Barton's claims and critiques of those claims could be concisely presented and discussed. -- BTfromLA (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I cannot write prose but I can research like a fiend. Shall I start a topic on this talk page for research found and/or requests ?...or would that be better elsewhere (user sub-page, etc) ? ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how this claim of Barton's should be treated, but would note [here on talk, by way of context] that he makes explicit reference to Paine's support for "Creation science" -- a creationist movement that didn't exist until the 1960s. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Right. If there is a reliable source that describes and reacts to this particular sound byte from Barton, maybe it can be folded into a paragraph on his views on education, which is one of his big topics.  Didn't he make his reputation by attributing teen pregnancy, violent crime and decline in SAT scores to Supreme Court decisions on institutionally originated prayer in public schools?  --BTfromLA (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This piece by Lauri Lebo may prove relevant. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, if that source passes muster--I'm a little hazy on what Wikipedians consider reliable in this context. By the way, I just watched the whole Barton interview (look for "Celebration") from which the evolution remarks were taken, and, gosh, he makes many other remarkable claims that might be of interest here, including explicitly stating his wish for Christians to take over all of the US political parties and compete to see who is more Biblical.  --BTfromLA (talk) 06:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't think that source would work. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Some Sources
I understand this is quite a bit of reading and I would be more than happy to provide summaries and/or hunt down footnotes and the like (I'll do my best to avoid the ever present risk of cherry picking). I can do the research if somebody else is willing to workout the prose. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Secondary
 * Cardozo Law Review - Understanding the "Christian Nation" Myth
 * New York Times - How Christian were the Founders?
 * Texas Monthly - King of the Chistocrats
 * New York Times - Using history to mold ideas on the right
 * New York Times - An Iowa stop in a broad effort to revitalize the religious right
 * Primary sources (see: WP:PRIMARY) from David Barton's site Wall Builders
 * Evolution and the Law: A Death Struggle Between Two Civilizations
 * The founding fathers on creation and evolution
 * Political Parties and Morality
 * Homosexuals in the Military
 * The Separation of Church and State
 * Taking On The Critics
 * Is President Obama Correct: Is America No Longer a Christian Nation?
 * The complete list: Issues and Articles


 * I would not use Barton's writings at all. Rather, Barton's words that have been quoted by others, in reliable sources, may be quoted here. This method will ensure that the notability of Barton's words is established. And it will greatly reduce the required reading list. Binksternet (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. As per WP:PRIMARY "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." (emphasis mine) ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also agreed, with the priviso that expert sources (i.e. legitimate historians) should be given emphasis. The more we can drag this article from a partisan he-says/she-says into a matter of expert scholarly evaluation of Barton's work the better -- both for Wikipedia's reputation and the readers' understanding of the subject. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This article has pointers toward a few bona fide historians--more than one of whom write from an explicitly Christian perspective--who have commented on Barton's work: Historians Agree: David Barton Is No Historian -- BTfromLA (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's another great article on Barton that just came out today: . Being that it's from a Liberal source, I'm sure its use as a source will be contested, but it does point out some other recent Barton revisionist theories, like his belief that the American Revolution was actually fought over slavery.  (LOL!)  “That’s why we said we want to separate from Britain, so we can end slavery,” Barton said.  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 17:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL... Britain ended slavery four decades before the USA. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ...and people wonder why I was so vehemently against him being labeled a "historian!" I mean, there certainly _are_ reputable Conservative historians, and I don't run over to the Wikipedia pages for credentialed, recognized historians like Forrest McDonald or Andrew Bacevich, and try to edit them to remove the word "historian," even though I disagree with many of their politics or interpretations of history.  But those people are real historians...who just happen to be Conservatives, rather than just glorified Sunday School teachers making absurd revisionist theories like Barton.  Bryonmorrigan (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

BryonMorrigan, you are correct that he is not an historian and the article now reflects that understanding. Why dredge this up again? Tempting though it may be, this isn't the place to vent against Barton's dubious claims or to stir up arguments with Barton's admirers--there are plenty of other venues for that. I suggest you channel your interest into improving the article, which is still in need of organization. --BTfromLA (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-fiction author
At the bottom of the page Barton is categorized as a non-fiction author. I am not so convinced the stuff he writes is non-fiction.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.18.116 (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that propaganda, no matter how misleading or inaccurately-based, can be described as 'fiction'. That has implications of a narrative and being for the purposes of entertainment, rather than simply being 'untruthful'. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Calls for "Bloody Scalps" to be displayed in Senate, over Party defecting to "Marriage Equality" support
I don't know where this would go, or how to cite items, but this seems significant: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/barton-hang-these-four-republican-scalps-over-senate-rail-supporting-marriage-equality

This happened yesterday (08/09/11) when he was on a radio show that also featured Maggie Gallagher from NOM (the National Organization for Marriage) and there's been some discussion of it, but not in the mainstream news yet that I can see. Still....colorful.


 * BARTON: "I want to see pro-family guys scared straight that are squishy on this issue, and if we can’t take out these four Republicans and the Majority Leader in New York, we will have opened a huge door for [homosexual] Melhman and his kind to come in and start rewarding these guys for going against pro-family stuff, and you just can’t let that happen...No disrespect to our Native American friends, but this is where you hang a bloody scalp over the gallery rail. You hang these four Republican scalps over the Senate rail and every other Republican senator looks up and sees those scalps and says, ‘my gosh, I’ll be hanging up there beside them if I don’t stay with this pro-family stuff.’ And that’s exactly what has to happen." Codenamemary (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Blatant Edit Warring On This Page Needs To STOP!
Accusing me of "Edit Warring," when I am the one reverting POV edits to this page is unacceptable. The edits made by "MickeyDonald," and recently re-added by "NYyankees51" and blatantly POV, and not even close to the actual meaning of the presented evidence. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It is not only activists who decry the work of Barton, it is a wide swath of scholars and lay observers. Binksternet (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"harsh"/"sharp" criticism
We don't need to put an unsourced value judgment on the criticism... particularly when we are showing examples of that criticism. The reader can make their own value judgment as to the harshness thereof, rather than relying on our POV. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * "Severe" would work. I am in favor of a descriptive word as a mini-summary of the following material, so that speed readers can quickly get the gist. There is no POV involved, simply a summation similar to writing an article's lead section. Binksternet (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If you have a source for "severe", bring it. Otherwise, it's just your opinion, and we're not here to document your opinion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I would call it intelligent summary rather than my opinion. What do you call it when you write an article summary? What do you call it when you paraphrase multiple sources? Is it your opinion?
 * How about the San Antonio Current saying that "The left-leaning People for the American Way recently drafted a scathing report on Barton..."? Is scathing harsh or sharp? Severe or heavy?
 * If a respected historian writes that you have a "history of outright falsehoods", wouldn't you call that a severe criticism? I would. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what I would call it, as Wikipedia is not here to document my opinion of that statement. You know how we show the severity of the "history of outright falsehoods" phrase? By including and sourcing that phrase. The readers will be capable of reading and interpreting that harshness for themselves. If their assessment agrees with yours, it makes your assessment redundant. If it doesn't agree, then your assessment is problematically POV. --19:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatGertler (talk • contribs)
 * You are in error. We do not limit words used in an article to those which were previously used by other sources, and label anything else "pov" - in fact, one can write an article using only sourced phrases which is a violation of POV; and vice versa. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 21:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * KillerChihuahua (aka: smarty boots puppy) is correct. Of course harsh (et al.) criticism of Barton can be sourced. Here's one possible source. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

-


 * We do limit negative claims about living persons to those which are sourced. It's our WP:BLP policy. --22:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatGertler (talk • contribs)

(outdent) Yes, we do. This is well sourced. If you prefer, we can discuss the phrasing more, but that Barton has been extensively, harshly, and yes, scathingly criticized is not in question, and is not unsourced. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 22:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a claim that is not sourced in the article in an appropriate manner - with the source of information being listed in the next reference note after the claim is made. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose then that you would accept scathing followed by the relevant inline cite. Binksternet (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you find "scathing" or something synonymous in a source referring to criticisms from multiple secular groups and/or multiple historians to match the claim being made, yes. Still don't see it as particularly necessary where we are showing the criticisms by example, tho. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Barton sues critics
Source: Suing three people in Texas whom he says have defamed him: Two of them note that Barton has had ties to white supremacists, and one said he is a liar
 * Bully pulpit? ‘Christian Nation’ advocate David Barton sues critics.69.22.171.16 (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It has received some attention. It might be worth a brief mention.   Will Beback    talk    02:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia editing & integrity
the page for David Barton seems bent to the negative...repeating accusations from the very biased Rob boston and a Rev Bracy? who makes accustations against Barton as a Bigot but provides NO SOURCES! my attempts to point that out have been removed... You are not going to allow anyone to point out Mr. Boston's bias or Rev Bracy's lack of sources are you?

David Barton dealt with Rob Boston's criticism over 10 years ago and has been very honest on his site concerning it and in all] of his videos and writings since then...I hope you would consider more fair and honest treatment of David Barton and wallbuilders.. I sent David Barton's conclusions to 6 leading American History and Government professors at Kansas' 3 largest universities...I heard back from 2 professors who both confirmed the accuracy of David Barton's conclusions...Wikipedia should be more open and tolerant in it's editing.... sincerely Norm1m — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norm1m (talk • contribs) 22:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What edit do you want to make, and what is your source? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 23:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What you have been posting is your opinion of Rob Boston. Wikipedia is not here to chronicle your opinion, as heartfelt as it appears to be. I recommend that you check out your own talk page - it contains a welcome message with a set of links which will better explain the goals of Wikipedia and the appropriate content. There are, of course, plenty of other places on the Internet which provides excellent fora for airing your opinions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverend Bracy's comments are offensive and unsubstantiated..why are they still here? David barton dealt openly and honestly with Boston's attacks 10 years ago...Mr. Barton is very honest but the wikipedia page indicates otherwise..it is unfortunate, but one must conclude that wikipedia is neither open, tolerant or honest with regards to value for the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norm1m (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Church & State
If anyone is unsure that we properly represent a source, then the right action is to add a tag, rather than simply deleting the citations and the material sourced to them.  Will Beback   talk    04:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If the content is controversial it should be removed per WP:BLP. It is common to place disputed material on the talk page.– Lionel (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lionelt is right here, and Will Beback must have misspoken. If there is a question about whether we are properly representing a source, and the statement is a negative BLP statement, then it should be removed immediately and the issue explored on the talk page before re-insertion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lionel did not claim that the article text misrepresented the source. Instead, he made a technical argument over whether the convenience link was appropriate, a different issue.   Will Beback    talk    02:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One link fixed. Have the other shortly. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Or not. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there real doubt that Boston has made these charges?  Will Beback   talk    07:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This drew criticism from Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who accused Barton of "shoddy workmanship", and said that despite these and other corrections, Barton's work "remains rife with distortions of history and court rulings".
 * Given the first link checked out, I'd go with no. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey Jimbo, you can call me Lionel.  – Lionel (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust denial
I'm going to (perhaps temporarily) remove this line: "Rev. Randolph Bracy, president of the Orange County, Florida chapter of the NAACP has referred to Barton as a "Holocaust-denier, an anti-Semite and someone who has called for the death penalty for gay and lesbian people", stating that Barton has "a long history of being related to the worst fringes of our society." on BLP grounds.

The Orange County, Florida chapter of the NAACP is, I'm quite sure, a very respectable local organization. However, to repeat a charge as serious as this, we need to be sure that it is actually true. That is, does the remark reflect negatively on Rev. Bracy (which surely it must, if in fact, Mr. Barton has never been a Holocaust-denier, anti-Semite, etc. If there charge were put forward by, oh, I don't know, let's say Desmond Tutu, then I suppose we'd be obliged to at least report on it.  But as it is made by the head of a local organization apparently not notable enough to have his own Wikipedia entry, then unless it's actually proven to be true, there's no way we should include it.  (And, if it is proven to be true, we should quote Mr. Barton's own words on the matter, rather than the unchallenged assertions of a critic.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you are arguing that Reverend Randolph Bracy Jr's opinion is undue weight in this BLP, as Bracy has no biography article. A quick glance around the intertubes makes me think it is time for Bracy to have a Wikipedia biography—he's received a good deal of independent coverage.
 * Ryan Grim, the reporter who put Bracy's opinion in his news article, is Huffington Post's Washington Bureau Chief, an award-winning reporter who cannot be dismissed out of hand.
 * I think the Holocaust denial accusation should return to the article. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Jimbo is, of course, correct (that's why they elected him Jimbo), and that was getting lost in the weak attempt to remove legitimate criticism of Barton. Bracy's opinion is of weight, but we have BLP guidelines that do not allow for simple damaging allegations to be reported. Grim's reliability points to the accuracy of the claim that Bracy made the statement, but not to the accuracy of Bracy's statement. I've done a quick-and-shallow check for source quotes. Problem is that Bracy was (if anything) referring to earlier comments from Barton, before he started getting as much attention as he does now, while the words are not as tracked. There is certainly sources for him calling for the "regulation" of homosexuality (while using spurious statistics to do so). --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Jimbo wasn't elected, and holds no special status as an editor. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 16:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what we call in the business a "joke". Did you seriously think that I was suggesting that there is an elected position called "Jimbo"? He is nonetheless right. The accusations are not of enough weight that their existence as accusations needs to be covered; their claim is not sourced enough that it is not a BLP concern. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry; that you were trying to make a joke was unclear to me. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Barton's own writing appears to be free of Holocaust denial. I couldn't find a scrap. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This seems to be a case of guilt-by-association on the part of the commenter. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 17:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent work everyone. I'm glad we figured this out.– Lionel (talk) 07:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Quotations in support and criticism sections
A couple of editors deleted all of the quotations from the criticism section, but left the quotations in the support section. I'm sure that was inadvertent, so I deleted those as well. Personally, I think summaries of views are usually better than quotations. Summarizing views avoids the problem of deciding whether individual quotations have been "cherry picked".  Will Beback   talk    21:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Good work. Binksternet (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

TOC/Archives & Previous Consensus
I just realized that this article has no TOC, nor any links to the archives. Since someone just tried to add the "historian" bit to him, I figured I'd doublecheck the consensus from the RFC, but it's not easy to find...particularly for WP newbies. I have never done archiving or adding a TOC, and don't have time to try to teach myself this morning, so someone please fix this page.

In the meantime, and for the IP who made the "historian" change, you can read the results of the consensus here:. He is not to be labeled a "historian" on Wikipedia, as he has no credentials or formal training in history, nor is he recognized as a "historian" by the academic historical community. -- Bryon Morrigan --  Talk  13:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're seeing, but this talk page does indeed have links to the Archives in the header, as well as an archive search box. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. Maybe it loaded funny due to the connection I was on earlier today.  I see everything now.  Weird.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  18:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection time?
Given the edit warring by a POV-pushing IP editor, would it be appropriate to semi-protect the article at this time? I don't know what the procedure is to request that... -- BTfromLA (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

SLAPP lawsuit
This seems like an interesting article possibly useful for this page. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Gregg Frazer's book
Good morning, folks -- I am regular user but rare editor on WP, and I appreciate those of you who do a lot of work here! Yesterday I added a short section under 'criticism' that provided a citation from a new and well-reviewed academic book which I believe is relevant and helpful. It is already being recognized as a new standard in studies of the religious beliefs of the Founders. Since Barton stakes his claim quite strongly for a certain view of this issue, he figures prominently in the argument of the book. Barton's holds to and argues for one of two ends of the spectrum -- the Founders/Framers as either Deist/secularists or as orthodox Christians -- that the book explicitly critiques. His work is analyzed carefully (and fairly) in the opening chapter as well as later ones. Thus Frazer's book is a valuable resource for anyone looking for a thoughtful and respectful critique. I am an academic intellectual historian myself in another discipline and in the interest of disclosure I should tell you that I know Dr. Frazer. It looks like this page has seen some edit warring, and I have neither time nor inclination to get involved in that, but I do think this new book is A)relevant to the article as a whole and B)highly relevant to the subheading, which currently just lists names of critics without going into the issue any further. Barton's views are, I believe, fairly represented on the page; a criticism section would do well to present in at least basic form the actual arguments against his position, without taking over the page and making it some kind of 'biographical hit piece.' The section I added is brief but substantive, pointing to a respectable and non-partisan outside source critical of Barton's claims. Numerous other WP bio pages follow the pattern of 'information followed by substantive support followed by substantive criticism.' I would appreciate any thoughts on the topic, especially how I might revise it to better meet WP community standards. I am arguing, then, that the section I added, and especially the quotation, sheds broader light on the subject of the article, and would be of use to anyone doing basic research. Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this; I have not done this before and am just figuring it out! 50.113.110.222 (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not have a copy of the book, so perhaps you could answer this question: Does Frazer mention Barton by name? If not, the book is of no use to this biography. Instead, it is helpful for the topic of "religious beliefs of America's founders"—one of the topics that Barton is interested in. In fact, Rjensen added the new Frazer book to Founding Fathers of the United States on July 1. If Frazer provides a rebuttal to Barton's arguments without naming Barton then we cannot infer a connection between the two men. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Frazer opens the book with a discussion of (among other things of course) the Christian America movement in general and quite a good bit on Barton in particular. In the middle of this section (pages 2-4) he states "The most prolific of the Christian America proponents is David Barton. Barton has created an entire organization, called Wallbuilders, to promote his views and to market his voluminous material." This is preceeded and followed by several paragraphs about Barton, Wallbuilders, and the CA movement. Thanks for the response, Binksternet. (I should probably set up an account to make this all easier...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.113.110.222 (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your eagerness to contribute this material to Wikipedia. In the article on Barton, for various reasons we really have to limit ourselves to items that are directly about Barton, criticism which is specifically and explicitly addressing Barton. It's not enough to see a source say that Barton is part of a Christian America movement and the Christian America movement argues X, which is wrong for reason Y... and as awkward as it may seem, that's true even if we have some other source noting that Barton himself argues X. To hook things up like that, even when it seems quite logical, is what Wikipedia calls synthesis. You can find the guidelines on synthesis at WP:SYNTH. This is not to say that the Frazer cannot be of use in this article, if he has specific criticism of Barton or of things that Frazer specifies as Barton's arguments when addressing them. It also doesn't mean that much the same material may not be of use elsewhere in Wikipedia, say in an article on the Christian America movement or an article on the religion of the founders (which we probably have and if I wasn't so tired, I'd go look up for you.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that, and the help/advice both of you have provided! Thanks very much for teh clarification -- I understand this much better. (Get some rest now!) ...g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.130.172.10 (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to see something of Frazer's book in this article. Please quote a passage or two that you think sums it up the best, Frazer commenting on Barton. Binksternet (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll find a short passage that is relevant and seems to work as you suggest, and will make another edit. 50.113.110.222 (talk) 02:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)g

My 2¢: The article definitely could benefit from a discussion of some of Barton's main claims and specific criticisms of them, so if you can make progress toward that end, please do so. But it's got to be about Barton and should probably focus on one of his key claims (he makes so many dubious assertions that it would take volumes to address them all, so I think we should focus on a few major examples, such as his argument that church/state separation is a myth). In other words, I doubt Frazier's concept of thestic rationalism is likely to have much of a place here, but if Frazier (or some other scholar) offers a cogent rebuttal to a specific assertion of Barton's, that may work. (I agree that you'll find everything goes better if you set up a named account, by the way.) -- BTfromLA (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you all feel about this? Any further suggestions would be appreciated! I have pulled a single passage, with a direct Barton assertion followed by a documented rebuttal by Dr. Frazer; this is bracketed by brief words of my own. I will add the footnote, but it is page 121 of his book. -- In his recent work "The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution" (University of Kansas Press, 2012) Professor Gregg Frazer of The Master's College argues that the Founders were by and large neither Deists nor Christians. His coinage "theistic rationalist" bridges the gap between the two categories and presents serious scholarly work strongly critiquing Barton's position that the Founders were conservative fundamentalists. “In an attempt to prove that (John) Adams believed in the Trinity, Christian America advocate David Barton is fond of publicly reading a portion of a letter from Adams to Benjamin Rush that includes this statement: ‘There is no authority Civil or Religious: there can be no legitimate Government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost.’ Barton stops reading just before the context illuminates Adams’s real point, however. After talking about the Holy Ghost for several rapturous sentences, Adams said: ‘All this is Artifice and Cunning in the secret original of the heart, yet they all believe it so sincerely that they would lay down their Lives under the Ax (sic) or the fiery Fagot for it. Alas the poor weak ignorant Dupe human Nature.’ The whole section extolling the Holy Ghost was written with dripping sarcasm. Adam’s concluded by asking, ‘Do you wonder that Voltaire and Paine [notorious infidels] have made Proselytes?’ Keenly aware of its controversial nature, Adams asked Rush to burn the letter.” Frazer’s book is not primarily an attack on Barton but rather a work of historical analysis; nevertheless its scholarship results in a sustained dismantling of the Christian America position.-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.130.172.10 (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be a bit longish, but it seems to be more or less what you all have suggested, linking/synthesizing Barton, criticism, and this book. --g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.130.172.10 (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that is still too focused on Frazer's book, which is not the subject of this article. If we wanted to introduce a section about Barton's claim that John Adams was a supporter of an evangelical Christian nation and use Frazer's quote to criticise Barton approach, that'd work.  But it has be totally in service of a discussion of Barton; this just isn't the place to write about Frazer's book or its thesis, sorry.  -- BTfromLA (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the suggested passage is perfectly apt, not longer than needed. It shows precisely how Barton was cherry picking a quote out of context, by supplying the missing context. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need the full quote; we can describe the criticism -- Frazer, in his book whatever it was, noted that Barton attempts to prove John Adams's belief in the Holy Trinity through "publicly reading a portion of letter from Adams to Benjamin Rush that includes this statement: 'There is no authority Civil or Religious: there can be no legitimate Government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost'", but that Barton overlooks the context that shows that this writing was "dripping with sarcasm". Then ref the source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this the same David Barton?
A poll on the website of the History News Network to determine the 'least credible history book in print' was won by 'The Jefferson Lies' by David Barton:. I'm not 100% sure that's the same David Barton, but if it is it might be worth noting in this article. Robofish (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. Same guy.  Same horrible "research."  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  14:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

First Muslim Congressman statement
I've removed the following:


 * ''In 2007, Barton published an article suggesting that late 18th/early 19th century Congressman and Senator John Randolph of Roanoke of Virginia was actually the first Muslim member of Congress in reaction to the 2008 election of Keith Ellison (D-MN), a practicing Muslim. (ref )(ref ) Barton's statement garnered widespread coverage in the evangelical Christian media at the time, but appears to have been based on a misinterpretation of a passage in which Randolph reported a youthful flirtation with agnosticism and professed sympathy for the Muslim Arabs during the crusades. Randolph was a practicing Episcopalian for most of his life, and biographer William Cabell Bruce considered Randolph's self-described "absurd prejudice in favor of Mohammedanism" a vagary that soon passed.(ref John Randolph of Roanoke, 1773-1833: a biography based largely on new material, Volume 2)

This appears to be mostly original research by the Wikipedia editor who wrote it in order to refute what seems to have been an off-the-cuff remark by Barton. --TS 16:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just an off-the-cuff remark; Barton was discussing Randolph's link to Islam multiple places, including this article still on the WallBuilders website, although this is phrased more cautiously than some of what he said elsewhere. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The piece I removed introduced this claim and then set about debunking it by using original research. I'd be fine with that being written about if it had emerged as a controversy outside Wikipedia. In fact if we had any external sources writing about his claim that might be okay.


 * But if he's just made the claim in an article and some guy on Wikipedia has noticed it and decided to report it and refute it, I don't think that's what we're supposed to do. So to be clear, I'm giving the go ahead for any reliably sourced reports focusing on that claim by Barton (whether critical or not). It's just the use of Wikipedia as a platform for original commentary like this that I objected to. --TS 18:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The Jefferson Lies withdrawn by Thomas Nelson, "because of deficiencies"

 * Genuine Christian Scholars Smack Down an Unruly Colleague theatlantic.com. Nemissimo (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

NPR-article about him, might have some good info
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/157754542/the-most-influential-evangelist-youve-never-heard-of Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

POV of NatGertler
I noticed a number of discussions here on what is apparently a controversial subject though no doubt worthy through cites of inclusion encyclopedic subject. I placed a number of fact tags in the article. These were then removed enmasse by NatGertler who "because he didn't have time" felt that I should have had the time as the reader to have been easily able to make connection between numerous claims and the relevant cite that may or may not have been at the end of the adjoining paragraph. Much though as an editor I can understand that been here a while logic, someone coming at this article from a neutral reading position, or one of the two conflicting positions with regards Mr Barton, simply may not. On controversial subjects, it is accepted practice to place WP:CITE where appropriate and not "imply" a need for the reader to make the required connections. I also note from NatGertler numerous edits on this page and within the article of a point of WP:POV - but that's not an excuse along with his lack of time to avoid correct procedure. I have therefore reversed the edit he made where I had placed fact tags, and hope that a more colaborative approach can be taken to creating somethign sustainable. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding fact tags in the lead section, they are not appropriate. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section is a summary of cited text in the article body. No cites are required in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Trident13, if you feel that there should be a cite after very word, then you have issues with Wikipedia style well above the level that should be being discussed on this talk page. You think something needs to be cited in the intro when the fact is established in the body of the article? The guideline WP:WHYCITE disagrees: "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article". When I saw that you had added the two fact tags to  Barton has been praised by U.S. conservatives Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas. , when that cite at the end of the sentence has Huckabee calling him "maybe the greatest living historian" in his category and Gingrich saying that he would seek Barton's advice, that indicated that you hadn't even bothered to check the sources that were in place. If you cannot be bothered to see whether the information is already cited before adding a "fact" tag, I see no reason why other editors should be expected to waste their time bothering to take them seriously. If you think that my ability to notice the existing proper citation of facts is a problematic POV, feel free to take it up on whatever notice board you choose rather than waste the time of the editors here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This is way over-reacting and a pretty clear violation of WP:AGF to boot. I'm surprised that an experienced editor such as yourself would accuse another wikipedian of POV over something so minor. Whole-sale reverting the edit was sloppy, but whole-sale tagging of cites without checking the references was equally sloppy. Both are completely understandable and hardly warrant this level of attention. Glaucus (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Huckabee quote
Would that quote by Mike Huckabee that the US would be better for listening to all David Bartons messages (at gunpoint) be a good thing to add to the reception section? If an RS can be found, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that informs us more about Huckabee than about Barton, but I'm open to other views. KillerChihuahua ?!? 16:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's almost exactly what I was going to say. It's an interesting quote because it's colorful, but the color speaks to the speaker. I don't think it says much about Barton, and thus doesn't belong here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You may be right. To me that section looks like it lacks actual opinions, the exception being Jay W. Richards. It is interesting what these people said (in summary if possible), not just that they said something pro/con. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible source
The October 2012 issue of "Church & State" (Volume 65, no. 9), the bulletin of Americans United for Separation of Church and State has a detailed overview of events connected with the "Jefferson Lies" book, including quotes from Christian historians, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Barton photo
I just undid the insertion of a copyrighted-and-without-proper-license photo into the article. I will note, however, that the commons has a photo of Barton that likely has the appropriate license; it is probably best cropped to be used in this context. I don't have time to handle it at the moment, but if someone else wants to take a run at it, there you go! --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This photo is being repeatedly deleted by a single editor. It seems to have the support of other editors, through their insertion of it. I would ask that the editor who wishes to see it gone make his argument here, rather than simply trying to repeatedly delete it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This photo is free: ==>
 * It should be included in the article just because is freely available. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there any up-to-date free images of him in Wikimedia Commons? - Billybob2002 (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Not that I've found, neither on the Commons nor at any other source... but even the addition of an up-to-date photo should not preclude us from using this photo, which shows him at an earlier point in his history, and which is currently used in the "Biography" section of this article, which should be particularly open to a subject's history. (Goodness knows that if the article on JFK were only to have "up to date" pictures, it would be rather offputting.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If a free, recent photo is found, then put it on info box please. - Billybob2002 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Actually, I tried to put a picture of similar quality on a different article, but it was rejected. Just because a picture is free does not mean it should be put on an article. - Billybob2002 (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I have cropped the photo, so that Barton shows up more clearly. But yes, we should have a photo (that's encouraged by the MOS as well as by instinct), and barring the emergence of any other usable photo, this reasonably good one is the one we should use. Even if we were to get a better portrait image, this one should be kept back in its uncropped form, showing him in context. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

How'd this article get this bad?
Is this somebody's idea of a joke? The article is clearly an attack piece. Of course we should include criticism of Barton from professional historians but we don't need the pointedly hostile wording and sources such as People for the American Way, Americans for the Separation of Church and State, and the American Humanist in the lead to do that. When I recently removed the sentence from the lead that begins "Barton holds no formal credentials . . . " an editor named Byronmorrigan accused me of "vandalizing" the article and trying to create a "NPOV puff piece." If such a response from editors who deal with this article is typical I can see why it's a mess. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (Note: I meant a "POV puff piece", not NPOV.) Barton's main "claim to fame" in the media is due to his criticism, as can be verified by looking at the number of articles devoted to debunking him, rather than supporting his wacky conspiracies and fraudulent "research"/ You made a bunch of changes to the article, apart from the lead, including adding the word "facebook" to a URL, for some reason. (???)  The reason that the "holds no formal credentials" is in the lead is because one of the main topics of Vandalism and POV editing on this page is concerned with POV hit-and-runs trying to make him seem like some kind of reputable "historian," when such is not the case.  Just as with the similar example of a pseudo-historian known primarily through his bad reputation, David Irving, his controversy and complete lack of any good reputation in the academic community are the main issues that one should find out about when looking at the lead.  This page is currently "under siege" from disruptive editors trying to eliminate all criticism of him, and so any changes will be viewed in that light. -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  16:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to think that Byronmorrigan's "NPOV puff piece" wording may have been a Freudian slip. No, we don't have to say three or four times in the lead alone that Barton's writings have been panned by (all?) scholars. Once or maybe twice will suffice. Nor do we have to call attention to his not having a formal history or law degree more than once in the lead. Badmintonhist (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and you still never explained why you were messing with URLs and adding words and characters into them. Were you trying to make them "dead links" or something?  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  00:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As pretty much a computer illiterate I can assure everyone that any "messing" that I did with URLs or links was inadvertent. My purpose was to remove a gratuitous sentence. Badmintonhist (talk) 05:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that the controversy should be mentioned briefly on the lead of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybob2002 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Article in need of editing
This article sounds like an attack ad on David Barton not actual reporting, it needs to be fixed. Thanks. - Billybob2002 (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is actually amazingly balanced, considering the fact that nobody except Conservative pundits or talk radio hosts takes him seriously. There's a reason that even Conservative historians denounced his most recent book...  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  23:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you would consider "fixed"; it covers the aspects of Barton that have drawn mainstream attention: his biography and work, the praise from conservative commentators, and the more negative view of the professional historians. Could it be expanded? Of course. But it should not be stripped of the very real controversies that have gained him attention. -Nat Gertler (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The negative's in the article should be in the controversy section. - Billybob2002 (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the criticism of his work is a key part of its notoriety. It should not be excised from the lead and hidden away somewhere deep. The goal of this article is not to promote Barton, it's to explain who Barton is in this world, and the fact that historians note strong accuracy problems with his work is a very big part of that. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Indeed. He's more well known because of the controversy than because of the actual stuff he's written.  It's like removing all the stuff about animal abuse from the Michael Vick page or something.  Billybob2002 is deleting all his vandalism warnings from his talk page, but that's not going to keep him from getting banned if he keeps this up...  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  02:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If you removed all the positive's in the article there would still be a complete article, surely this needs some editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybob2002 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Have no idea what that last comment means, but there is a good point being made here even if it is being made for the wrong reasons: the article does need editing. The lead should summarise the body of the article, yet at least 4 of the references in the lead are not used anywhere else in the article. A perfect lead should need few or even no references.
 * I think this article has seen a lot of drive by, top-loaded editing and the lead could do with some pruning by moving some stuff to the body of the article then re-summarising to cover only the most important criticism - eg the lead can state quite simply that he has no credentials and his historicity is widely ridiculed, leaving the detailed reasons and extensive quotes in the main body.GDallimore (Talk) 00:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, if nobody but conservatives and talk radio hosts take him seriously, than why does the media (such as The New York Times, etc.) attack him so much? You would think that they would just disregard him as some crazy person. - Billybob2002 (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For the same reason that Holocaust Deniers must be publicly countered. Even Conservative historians have debunked Barton's fakery.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  02:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We are supposed to have a neutral point of view on the articles, not try to expose someone who may or may not be a fake. - Billybob2002 (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You were asking why the New York Times covered him. They are not subject to Wikipedia policy. -Nat Gertler (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If the New York Times says something about someone, then that is important enough to be on a Wikipedia article.  I'm getting the feeling that "BillyBob" doesn't understand anything at all about how Wikipedia works...  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  11:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

If anybody wants to comment, who hasn't commented in this section yet, feel free. - Billybob2002 (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Is Fox News, or some other right-wing source, a reliable source? In opposed to left-wing sources (ABC News, New York Times, etc.)


 * It's not about right-wing vs. left-wing. Fox News and MSNBC are reliable for the politically motivated opinions of politicians, lobbyists, operatives and lackeys—just not for anything factual. See the guidelines at WP:Identifying reliable sources. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Plenty of media outlets generally viewed as conservative have been deemed WP:RS; consider, for example, the Wall Street Journal. Reliability comes from how they treat facts, rather than what opinion they hold. -Nat Gertler (talk) 06:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, many people are unable to distinguish between reporting and analysis. Reporting is simply listing facts.  Analysis is when talk show hosts express opinions about the news.  So if a news reporter on Fox News or MSNBC states, "The Senate voted against a gun control measure today," then that is RS.  If, however, Sean Hannity (Fox) on his show states that, "The Senate stood up for the Constitution today when they voted against a tyrannical gun control bill," then that is NOT RS.  Because analysts like Hannity, Rachel Maddow, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Ed Schultz, Olbermann, etc. are ALWAYS reporting opinions and analysis, they are generally NEVER RS, unless they are being used as RS to show what that person's opinions are (such as in the WP page for that person or television show).  There is also a major difference between news outlets with a "slant," but which are still "news" organizations that report facts, such as Fox or MSNBC...and outlets which are solely focused on opinion and analysis, and never simply report facts.  This latter category includes National Review, Daily Kos, or World Net Daily, which shouldn't be used as RS to "prove" anything, especially anything disputed or possibly POV, on any WP page.  --  Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  13:05, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note, the recent deletion of comments from this section is legitimate, as they did not address the editing of the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This article needs to be changed to NPOV.
I don't know this person but this is clearly a hit job. There are lines that say "many believe" and "some say" this and that. This needs to be changed to straight forward information. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The only uses of "many" and "some" in this article are quotes attributed to reliable mainstream sources. They may not be precise, but they are accurate, and are presented as quotes from those sources. As such, I'm not seeing POV problems here; we accept summaries of the situation from reliable sources, and the fact that Barton's claims are at odds with the views of large bodies of professionals is relevant. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This article is an accurate statement of the low regard held for Barton by scholars. That is not a "hit job", it's a neutral portrayal of the mainstream historian assessment. Binksternet (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This article IS a "hit job". It is far from a neutral description but plainly is written from a slanted viewpoint. It is a near certainty that no effort was made to find any positive descriptions of the subject person's work. The notice above that "scholars" hold this or that opinion is plainly one posted by a contributor who only accepts as scholars those who hold the same view of the subject of the article as does the author. E caroline (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)e_caroline
 * Historians and scholars are pretty much 100% in agreement on this guy. He is to history what that Ancient Aliens guy is to "science." Go ahead and try to prove otherwise.  Find some reputable scholars who think his "research" is up to snuff.  Just try.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  21:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article does indeed include praise of him. It just comes from folks who are not accredited professional historians, it comes from politicians and talk show hosts. I've not found significant sources in the history field who support him as a historian. NPOV does not require us to accept all claims as valid, or to ignore when junk history has been detected. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Just because some of the "professionals" say that he is a biased activist with flawed research, does not mean that he is not a historian. Say I call you not a credible Wikipedia editor, does not mean you are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billybob2002 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Historian" is a professional title, used to denote someone who is a professional in that field. Generally, this means someone who has a Ph.D., or at the very least, an M.A., in History or a closely-related field (like "American Studies" or something). Barton holds no credentials whatsoever.  If my plumber decided he wanted to become a brain surgeon, he'd need to get the proper credentials before anyone would take him seriously as a brain surgeon.  Barton does not even have the credentials necessary to teach History in a public high school!  Also, we've had this discussion previously on this page...It was voted upon almost 2 years ago, and the consensus was that he should not be labeled "historian".  Click Here:  to view the decision.  Your personal opinion does not trump the consensus of both the academic community and the Wikipedia community.  -- Bryon Morrigan --   Talk  22:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see some proof that says that even conservative historians don't take him seriously. - Billybob2002 (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Here ya go! --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, they agree with him for the most part, except for the "embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims." - Billybob2002 (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that is not even what the article says. It says they largely agree with him on one thing. -Nat Gertler (talk)


 * Could anybody identify the conservative historians mentioned in the article by name? -- Billybob2002 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * You will find several of them named in the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

FRC shutting down Barton's video
Warren Throckmorton is reporting that the Family Research Council has taken down a David Barton video they were using whose accuracy had been questioned. While this is getting echoed around, we should probably hold for a better base source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

PTSD criticism
I don't have time to sort it out and right it up correctly at the moment, but the recent edit regarding criticism over PTSD remarks can be ref'd to here, among other places. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Also msnbc.com. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

POV tagging
An IP editor has repeatedly added Template:POV to this page. It's being removed because, per that template's page, "The editor who adds the tag should first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." The IP editor in question said in an edit summary to look to the talk page for the objections, but there have been none posted by that IP, nor are they are any current discussions about POV (none posted to in more than half a year.) This tag should not be readded until there is discussion here with specific, actionable issues. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Minister?
The article introduces him first as a minister. However he does not seem to be notable as this. I will make a change that I hope people will agree with. Skylark777 (talk) 15:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

World Net Daily is NOT a "Reliable Source"
See the discussion here:. The IP that keeps adding "research" from WND needs to understand that that page is not even CLOSE to grounded in reality, and is considered to be as "Hyperpartisan" as adding Michael Moore or MoveOn.org as a "source" for information on Conservative figures. -- Bryon Morrigan --  Talk  00:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Facts, not conjecture or criticism
Any content on this article should be fact based. The irony is thick, as some authors criticize Barton for a lack of balanced scholarly work, Yet do the same.

This is why wiki is not intended for opinion, but for strictly balanced facts.

There was only one singular source of positivity in this entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.175.189.49 (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, despite your assumptions about what "wiki" is for, you'll find in our guidelines that the goal is to include viewpoints covered in proportion to how they're covered in reliable sources. The criticisms of Barton get significant coverage in reliable mainstream sources. If you have some plentitude of reliable mainstream sources presenting positivity, please put them forth; otherwise, to eliminate the negative because we don't have the positive would be creating WP:FALSEBALANCE.. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

"Confirmed" quotations
Someone just tried to insert a reference to Barton's list of unconfirmed quotations and the count of those that he has now claimed to have confirmed. While there are several reasons not to use that source, one should also look very carefully at what he is counting as "confirmed". #1 is a rewording of someone else's summary of what the quoted person said, #2 makes at least a reasonable case for confirmation, #3 is someone else's summation of the person being quoted, #4 is a quotation from some other source, not the indicated source, #5 appears to be a reasonable claim of confirmation. So for at least three of those five, calling them "confirmed" is Barton being generous with himself. Any attempt to refactor in this deleted reference should take that into account. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

World Net Daily source
There's been some back-and-forth over the insertion of a paragraph sourced to WorldNetDaily. Now, while WND is generally considered an insufficiently reliable source, this is a special case - WND is the publisher of the new edition of The Jefferson Lies, and the material being quoted is their own stance on the republication effort, stated as same. We generally consider people and institutions reliable sources for their own opinions. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * However, why should be their publicity outlet? When independent reliable sources make some significant comment, that's the time to include it using those sources. Not as what would basically be the equivalent of a copy of a PR release. Doug Weller  talk 18:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that would be, at least, better than the current state of the article, where we say that the book was withdrawn from publication, then mention a second publisher who said they would be returning it to print, but don't mention that a third publisher actually did. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you search? I found one that we can use from a few days ago.
 * There's also something called the Patheosblog - wouldn't normally mention it but it seems to be in the new edition of the book. - ah, it's by Warren Throckmorton. So we might be able to use some of his blog posts relating to this new edition, eg. Doug Weller  talk 19:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't search at the moment, I wasn't the one trying to add the paragraph, I was just here arguing against the statement tthe reason given for its deletion. But be careful how one wields Throckmorton, not because he isn't right and accurate, but because he's not quite a third-party when it comes to the conflict. He co-wrote Getting Jefferson Right, the book that critiqued Barton's book and was a key part in exposing its problems. (However, it's a good blog to follow if you want to keep some tabs on Barton.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know you didn't add it. And about Throckmorton's book. He's not a third party because Barton attacks him, but because of that there are probably ways we can and should use him. Doug Weller  talk 21:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Shortened lede
I've shortened the lede, moved the cut content into the "career" section of the article, and removed the "lede too long" box from the page. -- BTfromLA (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Barton claims Wikipedia editors are paid by George Soros
I don't know that this belongs in the article, but fwiw, in the video linked below (dated 8/13/16), Barton claims that his critics are recruited and paid by George Soros, including the editors of his Wikipedia page. He complains that he can't change the data on his own Wikipedia page because of "all the Soros people," who depict him as "really evil."

Gosh, for all this time I've failed to invoice Soros...

http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/files/2016/08/Barton-Soros-JLies.mp4

BTfromLA (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As the top quantity editor on this page in recent years I feel put into a position where I actually have to state that:
 * I am not working for George Soros.
 * I am not being paid by anyone to edit this page or any other Wikipedia page.
 * While I have been approached with offers to be remunerated for editing some Wikipedia pages, I have never been approached about this one (and to make my point doubly clear, have never accepted remuneration for editing any Wikipedia page.)
 * I'd say the content doesn't belong in the article unless and until there is some reasonable mainstream third-party coverage of it. (And no, Throckmorton is not a third party in this instance, as he clearly takes the recorded material as suggesting things about himself.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Doctorate?
Shouldn't this article make mention of Barton's claims to a PhD (and subsequent retraction thereof)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.84.159 (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Has it been covered in any reliable third-party source? I've only seen it on Throckmorton's blog, which would be a problematic source, but then I haven't been looking. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if these are better sources, but Right Wing Watch (http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/david-barton-removes-video-claiming-he-has-earned-doctorate) and an American United for Separation of Church and State blog (https://www.au.org/blogs/wall-of-separation/doctor-doctor-give-me-the-news-where-did-you-get-your-degree) have both covered the recent video by Barton that claims he has an "earned doctorate." Shane Lin (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Silver Angel Award
I'm about to delete the statement that WallBuilders won two Silver Angel Awards. This is not because the source page is dead, but because it does not seem to be a significant award. Googling and checking dozens of references mentioning the Silver Angel Award, only one of them was not media generated by the recipient. They also seem to have been given out in mass quantity; for example the same year that WallBuilders won two, this one PBS series won eight. It's not a very selective award, and it has no visible impact. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. We've been discussing non-notable awards for films and agreed they shouldn't be used, that's the same thing here. No article for the award, no mention. Doug Weller  talk 08:32, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested additions
New coverage and quotes of myself request as support and counter biases of some of the negative points:

[Oklahoma] House Bill 2177 by state Rep. John Bennett (R-Sallisaw) would allow, not mandate, the display of the Ten Commandments alongside other historically significant founding documents, such as the U.S. or Oklahoma Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta or others. The bill was passed in the House General Government Oversight & Accountability Committee. Bennett quoted respected historian David Barton in addressing the committee.

“We are excited to be bringing a speaker described by a national news organization as ‘the nation’s historian,’” prayer breakfast founder and chairman Lonnie Holliday said. “He averages 400 appearances a year — he is sought by that many groups. TIME Magazine has named him one of the nation’s 25 most influential evangelicals.”

Davidbartonwallbuilders (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You are not a respected historian. Those words might be used by an admirer but not by topic scholars.
 * Who is Lonnie Holliday and why is this statement important? To me it looks quite unimportant. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing much worth adding here. We've already go the Time listing covered, so saying that someone noted it seems redundant. In terms of notables stating support for Barton, the founder of a local prayer breakfast and a state rep actually dilutes the power of what's there; these guys aren't exactly in the league of Huckabee and Gingrich. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I concur that the above doesn't seem notable enough for inclusion. Further, to clarify WP:NPOV isn't a rule that states every negative statement needs to be balanaced by a positive statement, but rather the article should neutrally characterize the topic. As far as I am aware, Barton holds WP:FRINGE views that are considered pseudo-history by all historians that are aware of him, and he is also politically influential. Wikipedia should reflect that. Ashmoo (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)