User talk:JohnsonH2020

December 2023
Hello, I'm Binksternet. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to David Barton (author) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The current post is far less than neutral. The citations are mainly newspaper articles and even include the American Humanist Association.
 * You cannot claim neutrality while allowing articles on a right wing person to be based on overwhelmingly left leaning sources (and in the case of the American Humanist Association, active opponents).
 * I provided citation from academic literature that is balanced (eg The Oxford Handbook of Church and State in the United States), which makes clear that Barton's views are neither 'discredited' or 'pseudoscience'... which are both terms that are the antithesis on neautral. They simply represent a different perspective on American history, as clear from the source I cited which presents the “Competing Views.”
 * There is not one correct view of history, where all others are 'pseudoscience'. There are competing views, each with strengths and weaknesses.
 * None of the changes I made favoured Barton, but merely represented his position factually, rather than polemically.
 * Case in point: The term 'pseudoscience' is not used in any of the cited to make that accusation (citations 3,4,5) JohnsonH2020 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty called Barton's work "pseudo-history" in 2011. The SPLC cites this piece as significant and also calls Barton a "pseudo-historian". Andrew Seidel of Americans United for Separation of Church and State agrees with this view, referring to the "pseudo-histories" of Barton and others. Seidel says Barton is in the business of disinformation. Historian John Fea of Messiah University says "David Barton is a political propagandist" who misrepresents history. NBC News said Fea assessed Barton's work as "pseudo-history". NBC News doubled down on this label in 2012. MSNBC said the same in 2014. Theologian Tara Isabella Burton wrote in Vox that Barton was a "fake historian". The editor of the San Antonio Current assessed Barton as a "pseudo-historian". Same with the Dallas Observer. Mother Jones magazine called him a "fake historian". It's not Wikipedia that is inventing this label and applying it to him. Binksternet (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The pseudo history point was a side note, but I'd be happy to investigate the claim and the claimants though.
 * You cannot claim neutrality while resting on biased sources, which was my primary point. Even in the list above, Vox and Mother Jones are pretty far Left, and Seidel's organization is diametrically opposed to Barton's viewpoint. Quite simply, terms like 'fake historian' are not neutral terms.
 * History and Historians should address the argument and the evidence, not the character of the writer.
 * Barton is also overtly writing from an Evangelical Christian perspective, and thus incorporates Christian theological points into his history. That does not make his views pseudohistorical, but simply history through the lens of an Evangelical Christian.
 * To label that thus 'pseudoscience' would be bias against religious faith views. It would be more factually neutral to say he was a historian writing from an Evangelical Christian standpoint. That neither advocates for or against the veracity of those views... which should be the point of neutrality.
 * It would be like me writing an article on Biden based on what I find in Fox News, Breitbart and the Daily Wire and then claiming that my negative characterizations of Biden were factual and 'neutral'. At best, it would represent Confirmation Bias.
 * My characterization of Barton's views and his historicity is based on relatively non-partisan sources (the Oxford Handbook cited, for example), and the notes on church and state vs Christian nation are specifically referenced to an article on the 'Competing Views' on that topic.
 * Barton's views would fall within those competing views.
 * The lack of neutrality in the original post is the main point, and the most petinent. JohnsonH2020 (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Neutrality", in Wikipedia terms, does not mean that we treat all claims as equal. It does not mean, for example, that we have to treat the flat earth theory, as if it were reasonable science, as we have plenty of good, modern, scientific sources on the shape of the earth. I'm going to suggest that you read Neutral point of view, but here I'll quote it's opening: All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.
 * We have plenty of sources that meet our reliability standards that judge the Barton's work as quite flawed. We also have sources representing the religious right -- we quote someone from the Discovery Institute, we use as a source the evangelical magazine World which itself is citing conservative Christian professors.
 * If you can find some reliable sources on the topic of history making claims that Barton is putting forth things grounded well and properly in history, I suggest you raise those at Talk:David Barton (author) so it can be discussed whether and how to integrate them into the article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The article makes no accusation of 'pseudoscience'. The sentence supported by references 3, 4, and 5 does use the term 'pseudohistory', which you will find in 4, albeit hyphenated as 'pseudo-history'.
 * Lucky for me, at least parts of that Oxford Handbook is on Google books, so I can look up what it has to say about Barton. Apparently, the only thing the available portions have to say about him is in a footnote on page 303, where we see "A leading writer, though unreliable from a scholarly perspective, is David Barton", and then it names his book and, because the book is named there, it also shows up in the bibliography for that section. Part of the range of material that you list is available in the preview, and that part has no mention of Barton. However, unless the missing portion specifically refers to David Barton and his views (and the lack of a citation for him in the bibliography suggests it does not), there are problems with using that in Wikipedia to make a statement about him and his views, due to our policy on synthesizing sources to make a point. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Barton's viewpoint is cited there. That's the germaine issue.
 * I suggest you read the edit I made and tell me what was not neutral about it. What it did was to, "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias" JohnsonH2020 (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it cited as Barton's view? If not, we cannot use it, due to WP:SYNTH.
 * But beyond that, no, it's not proportionate to what is being discussed, it's not even about what's being discussed. We have said that Barton advances idea X and opposes idea Y. We've also said that scholars believe Z about his work, which does not make it specifically a statement about X and Y. Your posting a statement that Y does not contradict X doesn't address even what is being presented as his view, which is X-and-not-Y. Posting as an assertion one view from a book section that describes views as "competing" does not seem balanced or unbiased. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Competing views in this context means that the author is presenting the differing academic views on this subject.
 * The specific issue I'm addressing is bias.
 * I was looking up who Barton was, and came across your article. What struck me was how strongly biased it was, which caused me to seek out other sources.
 * Your characterization of Barton's viewpoint as 'pseudohistory' is part of this.
 * You've characterised Barton as 'promoting pseudohistory', apparently not based upon the articles cited there, but upon the ones you subsequently listed. That in itself is a bit of an issue.
 * Among the sources you cited there were:
 * 1) BJC online (https://bjconline.org/david-bartons-tour-of-pseudo-history/?option=com_content&task=view&id=2377&Itemid=110): This is a 2 paragraph assertion without any evidentiary basis, by an organization which specifically defines itself as against ‘Christian Nationalism’ and “defending the separation of church and state”, which make it the ideological opponents Barton and what he promotes.
 * 2) SPLC (https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2011/05/05/david-barton-%E2%80%93-extremist-historian-christian-right): This mainly details Barton’s political activities, and asserts that he is a ‘pseudo-historian’. Once again, assertion especially by ideological opponents does not constitute proof, and this should not be used as a basis for neutral factual statements.
 * 3) Jack Jenkins (including discussion of Andrew Seidel’s views) (https://www.texastribune.org/2022/07/29/texas-church-state-separation-opposition/): This article makes use of much of Seidel’s opinions, but is actually written by Jack Jenkins. To his credit, Jenkins engages with Barton’s ideas here, rather than simply making assertions. The assertion that Barton is ‘pseudo-history’ is here rightly placed in quotation marks and attributed to Andrew Seidel. Seidel’s condemnation of Barton is strange however in that Seidel himself is not a historian, but rather has background in neuroscience, environmental science, human rights and international law. As I think I noted earlier, Seidel works for the Freedom From Religion Foundation and specifically identifies himself as “Fighting Christian Nationalism”, thus making him clearly an ideological opponent of Barton. In short, we have the assertion that Barton is pseudo-history, made by a non-historian ideological opponent. Jenkins himself does not make that claim, though it is clear that he does not favour Barton’s position. Jenkins notes that associate justice Neil Gorsuch espouses Barton’s position, and Gorsuch does have background in both the Social Sciences and the law, so clearly does not consider Barton’s position to be pseudo-history.
 * 4) John Fea apud NBC (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/evangelical-activist-influence-speaker-mike-johnson-rcna122313): Fea does not say Barton is pseudo-history. It is NBC which represents Barton in this way ("Despite the criticisms, Fea and other religious scholars say Barton’s pseudo-history..."). What Fea does is what any reputable historian does, he addresses Barton's ideas and arguments, which he disagrees with.
 * 5) San Antonio Current: (https://www.sacurrent.com/news/bashing-the-godless-democrats-with-christian-nationalist-david-barton-32573805) There is no evidence or analysis that would lead to considering Barton a ‘pseudo-historian’ here, only assertion. You’ve chosen to cite here from a source that represents itself as, “Assclown Alert is a column of opinion, analysis and snark.” Those are not the words of an unbiased source.
 * 6) Mother Jones: (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/david-barton-new-york-times-huckabee/). There’s no evidence here, only accusations, and Wikipedia itself recognizes that Mother Jones is an overtly Progressive source, and so ideologically opposed to Barton and his viewpoint. The Mother Jones actually states that others have represented Barton’s views, not as pseudohistory, but as representing, “a legitimate debate over his view of history”. This source is very poor and highly biased.
 * "It's not Wikipedia that is inventing this label and applying it to him."
 * Gentlemen, with all due respect, it is you (representing Wikipedia) which is promoting biased narratives instead of providing a neutral fact based source for people to jump off from. It would be entirely correct to say that Barton promotes an Evangelical Christian perspective on history, or that some disagree that this perspective has merit. It is bias to label him as a pseudo-historian, resting almost entirely upon assertions by ideological opponents.
 * That is the definition of bias, not neutrality.
 * And of course my citation is public. Wiki is a public source, and the purpose of citation is to provide ways for the public to verify the claims made. JohnsonH2020 (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 4) John Fea apud NBC (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/evangelical-activist-influence-speaker-mike-johnson-rcna122313): Fea does not say Barton is pseudo-history. It is NBC which represents Barton in this way ("Despite the criticisms, Fea and other religious scholars say Barton’s pseudo-history..."). What Fea does is what any reputable historian does, he addresses Barton's ideas and arguments, which he disagrees with.
 * 5) San Antonio Current: (https://www.sacurrent.com/news/bashing-the-godless-democrats-with-christian-nationalist-david-barton-32573805) There is no evidence or analysis that would lead to considering Barton a ‘pseudo-historian’ here, only assertion. You’ve chosen to cite here from a source that represents itself as, “Assclown Alert is a column of opinion, analysis and snark.” Those are not the words of an unbiased source.
 * 6) Mother Jones: (https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/david-barton-new-york-times-huckabee/). There’s no evidence here, only accusations, and Wikipedia itself recognizes that Mother Jones is an overtly Progressive source, and so ideologically opposed to Barton and his viewpoint. The Mother Jones actually states that others have represented Barton’s views, not as pseudohistory, but as representing, “a legitimate debate over his view of history”. This source is very poor and highly biased.
 * "It's not Wikipedia that is inventing this label and applying it to him."
 * Gentlemen, with all due respect, it is you (representing Wikipedia) which is promoting biased narratives instead of providing a neutral fact based source for people to jump off from. It would be entirely correct to say that Barton promotes an Evangelical Christian perspective on history, or that some disagree that this perspective has merit. It is bias to label him as a pseudo-historian, resting almost entirely upon assertions by ideological opponents.
 * That is the definition of bias, not neutrality.
 * And of course my citation is public. Wiki is a public source, and the purpose of citation is to provide ways for the public to verify the claims made. JohnsonH2020 (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is the definition of bias, not neutrality.
 * And of course my citation is public. Wiki is a public source, and the purpose of citation is to provide ways for the public to verify the claims made. JohnsonH2020 (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And of course my citation is public. Wiki is a public source, and the purpose of citation is to provide ways for the public to verify the claims made. JohnsonH2020 (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And of course my citation is public. Wiki is a public source, and the purpose of citation is to provide ways for the public to verify the claims made. JohnsonH2020 (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi JohnsonH2020! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at David Barton (author) that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The minor edit referred to putting the publishers name in a citation. The other (previous) edits were done normally. JohnsonH2020 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My bad; I was accidentally looking at both your edits with a single edit summary. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. JohnsonH2020 (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)