Talk:David Barton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Comments

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

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

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

[edit] Very biased.

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

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

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

It would appear that the only basis for describing David Barton as a 'historian' would be to claim that he is a writer of 'history books.' But can his books be legitimately be described as 'history'? They do not appear to narrate important historical events or lives, as one would normally expect from a history book. Rather they appear to employ quotations from historic figures in order tojustify a political viewpoint. This could be argued to be 'political advocacy' rather than 'history.' As such these books, on their own, would appear to be inadequate substantiation for a claim that Barton is a 'historian.' I would therefore suggest that further substantiation of this description be sought, and if it cannot be found then the word 'historian' be removed or qualified (e.g. "self-described historian" or similar).Hrafn42 17:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Further to my earlier comments, it seems strange that, for a supposed 'historian,' it is his praise by a politician (rather than by fellow historians) that is included, and that he is described as a powerful "Evangelical Leader." This would all indicate that he is notable in the field of politics rather than in historical research. I am therefore increasingly of the opinion that the first sentence should read: "David Barton (born 1954) is an author, a conservative political advocate and a self-described historian." ("Self-described" because that is how he has himself described on his Wallbuilders biography.)Hrafn42 17:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I support your analysis above. Wjhonson 20:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Common dictionary definition of “historian” 1. an expert in history; authority on history; 2. a writer of history; chronicler (most dictionaries are similar). David Barton has written books that even fit your narrower definition (e.g., Benjamin Rush, Bulletproof George Washington) Regardless of the fact his critics would like to contest the description because they disagree with him; he irrefutably fits the commonly understood definition of a historian.--Attenuator 21:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I looked up Benjamin Rush on Amazon, one reviewer described it as:

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

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

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

This is clearly rather fanciful Christian propaganda rather than serious historical research.
I would conclude that, absent substantiation of their historical merits, neither should be considered to be serious historical biographies, and that they should be discounted as evidence that David Barton is a 'historian.'
Further, Attenuator has presented no evidence that David Barton can legitimately be considered "an expert in history" or an "authority on history," nor does the article provide any substantiation of this point beyond the claim, by Barton's own organisation that he has carried out "exhaustive research (from original writings) on the Founding Era [that] has rendered him an expert in this field." I would question if this is a reliable source for Barton's research and expertise. Hrafn42 07:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Or a better word would be "apologist". A historian does not set out to prove a pre-conceived notion, they allow the sources to speak for themselves. Barton however has admitted that some of his quotations are made up. Wjhonson 21:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have personally looked up many of his quotes used in Original Intent using primary sources in university and other libraries – they are accurate. (You will have to show me where he “admitted making up” quotes.) The quotes he uses from the Founders DO speak for themselves and are easily verified using his footnote citations. I challenge you to look them up for yourself.--Attenuator 23:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh I'm sure you've "personally looked up many of his quotes". It's highly likely Attenuator is another sock-puppet of Barton's. All his postings are to this page Attenuator contributions. Wjhonson 08:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
And you have babysat this page to ensure that it reflects your own personal antagonisms and biases. Anything that mentions "God" or Christianity in a positive light is obviously suspect in your world of "respected scholars" (i.e., those with your viewpoint). It’s not surprising that sources you cite all seem to come from the same perspective - hardly appropriate for an encyclopedia article (but certainly good copy if this was a liberal blog). --Attenuator 21:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Glorification

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

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

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

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

Surely, it's notable that entries submitted by Barton's production company have won media awards given out by an organization that is (according to the page about it at IMDb) "...primarily financed by media award entries." Surely, it's notable that his biography on his website takes the trouble to point out that he has received these awards. Let the man speak for himself! His words and actions will reveal who he truly is. Whyaduck 14:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the whole thing is distinctly Rimmeresque[4], but feel that it may mislead readers who are unaware of the actual stature of Angel Awards. Would it be appropriate to to modify the sentence to say:

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

Hrafn42 15:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Your suggested addition wouldn't harm the article, but I think Wikipedia needs a short article about the organization Excellence in Media, to which this article (and any other articles which mention Angel Awards) could link. I understand your concern that some readers may be misled if too little information is included in an article, but I have some hope that a word to the wise remains sufficient—and the merely ignorant may be less likely than would be, say, the prejudiced, to find some things lightly touched upon to be obscure beyond understanding. Taking this tack does of course run the risk that some innocent but none-too-bright folk could be misled, but I suspect these to be fewer than you might fear. Our main concern is those who come to the page pre-misled and thus choose to remove factual information they perceive as unfair or to add erroneous content they truly but mistakenly believe to be accurate and just. The article may eventually need official Wikipedia protection, but I think quite a bit could be accomplished short of that. Whyaduck 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I've inserted the description. If anybody ever gets around to creating an article on Excellence in Media (assuming they're considered to be 'notable'), the description can be replaced by a link to it. Hrafn42 13:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Changes

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

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

The trouble is that Barton appears to get little attention (and almost no direct discussion) from the mainstream media. His work seems to get attention and discussion (applause or criticism) mainly in the blogosphere. Hrafn42 01:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Scratching around on Google in an idle moment, I turned up that most 'George Washington Honor Medals' mentioned appear to be awarded by the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge. Could his Wallbuilders biographer have gotten them confused with the DAR (they're both historical/patriotic groups)? Hrafn42 12:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The last paragraph

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] This article is 'owned' by Bwallace07 & Attenuator

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Structure

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

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

Hrafn42 15:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/Talk%7EDavid_Barton_bbed.html"