This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). United States: Texas / History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history. Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Conservatism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative views Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The word unorthodox does not give the proper connotation as a summary of the information below. The first dictionary definition that I found is "Breaking with convention or tradition; not orthodox; heterodox; heretical." This is an odd term to use for someone whose biography says is a Christian. It comes across in context a pejorative and it is an opinion or conclusion rather than a proper summary -- something stated in a reliable source in the body. -- WP:RS - WP:SYN - A synthesis is not permitted and is considered original "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." WP:BLP - " The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Reverting back with the statement that "the summary is fine given the context" is unhelpful @Nomoskedasticity

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Barton_(author)&diff=985548438&oldid=985548290 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihaveadreamagain (talk • contribs) 16:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with anyone being Christian. The key point is whether Barton's views depart from the historical understandings produced by qualified/recognised historians. The answer is clearly: yes, they do. But never mind -- "unorthodox" might not be the right word. We have "embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims." Another word, a more concise way of doing it, is "pseudo-history". Let's do that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind, what I had in mind as a change is already present in the lead. Unorthodox works; we could consider something else as a substitute, but deletion doesn't work -- it would convey the wrong impression about his work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If pseudo-history is already in the lead, then there is no different impression by using "unorthodox" - that is just piling on criticism. It is the wrong word. Controversial would certainly cover "embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims" without making a conclusion. Ihaveadreamagain 19:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many things are controversial without being unorthodox (for example, circumcision.) Unorthodox carries a separate meaning. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unorthodox is the better term here. The suggestion that it is unduly pejorative seems misplaced. When our article on "Take Five" notes the composition's unorthodox quintuple meter, it does not read as a criticism. Ewulp (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An unorthodox physician would likely be considered a quack. A composition that is unorthodox is just innovative. In fact, "innovative" would be an acceptable term, as would controversial. Ihaveadreamagain 13:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It will be difficult or impossible to find a legitimate straight-faced source for "innovative" in this context, and "controversial" implies that both sides might have equivalent merit. I believe "unorthodox" accurately captures how Barton's position stands in relation to mainstream scholarship. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The word "unorthodox" is perfectly apt, unless we go with anti-orthodox. Barton stands in opposition to mainstream history narratives. That's his purpose in life, to change how history is portrayed. Binksternet (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial does not imply equality of argument. In fact, disputatious, is a synonym, although lesser used. It simply means that it causes controversy. It does not comment on the veracity of the arguments of a particular viewpoint. The other paragraph in the lead mentions pseudo research, so expanding that idea not needed; "controversial" covers the other idea of contentiousness that is missing. Ihaveadreamagain 18:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Five people have expressed to you that unorthodox is a very appropriate descriptive word to use here. To me, it looks like consensus has jelled against your preference to remove the word. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Framing solidly supported biological science as "controversial" (with the implication that there is a meaningful dispute to be had) is one way creationists have attempted to confer validity on their own views, so they can be taught in US public schools, separation of church and state notwithstanding. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@just_plain_Bill I wasn't aware that Mr. Barton was pushing creation science. There are a lot of issues that are controversial, such as whether Joe Biden played footsie with China. While one side is just plain goofy, this issue itself is controversial. Dear @binksternet -- are you saying my request to remove the word is unorthodox? ;) Ihaveadreamagain 19:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you were also unaware that "controversy" has been used in an adjacent context to imply that both sides of an argument are worthy of consideration when one is plainly not.

In other words, "controversial" in this context carries a whiff of rhetorical shenanigans. "Unorthodox" is still the apt choice here. Just plain Bill (talk) 20:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate seeing other editors' take on this issue, so I won't beat a dead dinosaur. Cheers. Ihaveadreamagain 15:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the opening line of this article immediately caused me to wonder if it was coming from a neutral point of view. It even seemed to imply that promoting a "religious basis" in United States history is an unorthodox theory. After taking considerable time to review this discussion, I agree with those who have pointed out that unorthodox is not an accurate word to use in this case. Barton's stated belief is that "Christian principles played a major role in America's founding" ^[1] and WallBuilders provides an "emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built" ^[2] It is certainly not unorthodox to promote a "religious basis of the United States". However, what is extremely controversial about David Barton is the "embarrassing factual errors, suspiciously selective quotes, and highly misleading claims" that the referenced historians uncovered in one or two specific books (e.g. The Jefferson Lies). These same historians "largely agree with Barton's belief that Christian principles played a major role in America's founding"^[3]. As early as 1996, these challenges resulted in WallBuilders publishing and maintaining a list of "Unconfirmed Quotations" on their website ^[4] In short, although David Barton has experienced considerable controversy as recently as 2013 over his use of unconfirmed quotations, it is not accurate to say he is currently promoting unorthodox theories about the religious basis of the United States. Buildingabettertomorrow (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Unorthodox theories about the religious basis" does not mean that stating that the US has a religious basis is in and of itself unorthodox any more than referring to "Chico Marx's unorthodox piano playing" means that the very act of playing the piano is unorthodox. And the source you're citing is not talking about the general view of historians, but specifically about a group of "politically conservative evangelicals or Catholics". --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do see what you're saying, but "Chico Marx promoting unorthodox theories about the religious origins of Monkey Business" is worded in a way that would seem to imply an unorthodox theory. Wording is important, especially in the opening paragraph. The point that I made with the cited source was that you should not be using it to call Barton's general position unorthodox when those who disagreed with his unsourced quotations actually agreed with his general position (e.g. "Christian principles played a major role in America's founding"). --Buildingabettertomorrow (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your reference to a 2012 piece by Thomas S. Kidd is reliable enough, but the wallbuilders website cannot be held up as proof of anything. Kidd is quite damning in his treatment of Barton. The orthodox view of the founding of the USA is that the country contained a plurality of religious beliefs from the very beginning, Christian and non-Christian, and the form of its 1789 Constitution was pointedly non-religious. Barton doesn't highlight these aspects; he wants his readers to believe something false. In that sense, he is quite unorthodox in his historical narrative. Anyone putting forward a religious basis for the USA is selling false information. Were there a lot of Christians in the country? Undoubtedly. Were they influential in the founding of the nation? Certainly. But the Constitution was written with a definitive separation between church and state, which Barton wants to erase. Binksternet (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that the "WallBuilders website cannot be held up as proof of anything" takes my usage completely out of context, which was first to use the subject as a self-published source in referencing how the organization defines it's mission and then to refer to their response to the controversy in discussion. You'll notice that these same articles on the WallBuilders site are currently and correctly being used in the "References" section of the official article. And your unsourced claim that "Barton wants his readers to believe something false" does seem to reveal a personal bias, which is likely what has caused myself and others on this talk page to express concern. Barton's actual sourced position that "Christian principles played a major role in America's founding" is hardly even controversial, let alone unorthodox. The Separation of Church and State continues to be strongly debated ^[1][2][3][4] so to define Barton as a "promoter of unorthodox theories" simply over his historical analysis of the Separation of Church and State^[5] is highly questionable. --Buildingabettertomorrow (talk) 03:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The wallbuilders website is not going to help in any way with the issue of whether Barton is labeled as unorthodox here on Wikipedia. That's what I meant: it's not a factor in this discussion. There are many instances on Wikipedia where an organization defines themselves differently than the media, but Wikipedia goes with WP:SECONDARY sources to define the topic. Primary sources can fill in unchallenged factual gaps but they cannot define the topic.

Do I have a personal bias? Certainly. My bias is for truth and accuracy, which puts me in opposition to the politically motivated cant emanating from Barton. As Vox says "By creating a deeply unbalanced history of America’s foundations, [Barton] is able to legitimize the Christianized state he would like to promote."[1] (That's by Tara Isabella Burton, a PhD in theology at Oxford.) Binksternet (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that his theories can't be called unorthodox because he's just saying there is religion behind the founding is like saying that the theory that 2+2=7 can't be called unorthodox because it's just saying that numbers add up to things. Let us not oversimplify in that way. Barton relies on claims that are widely rejected by the body of historians. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bias on this page is greatly appalling and should be removed. Barton uses first hand primary sources to credit his work and the Left is constantly trying to discredit so they can go on their merry sick ways! 208.38.250.137 (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have particular changes to the article you would like to see made? You will get better traction if you propose specific wording. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or, perhaps, you might get better traction. No guarantee... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

True enough. Complaining about bias and disparaging "the Left" is guaranteed to gain no traction. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]