Talk:David Barton (author)

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#Religion 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.--