This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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 articles
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reformed Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Reformed Christianity 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.Reformed ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject Reformed ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject Reformed ChristianityReformed Christianity articles
I have gotten two great sources and I am addressing your concerns here on the talk page. Could you please stop editing in response to me? This is counter-productive because it certainly appears that you only want to edit this article when I do, even though you do not appear to have any ambition to do research on this figure. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you have two bare mentions in third-party sources. This is NOT "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". No, you do not WP:OWN this artilce and I will not stop rectifying your badly-worded, uninformative, policy&guideline-non-compliant edits. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't bare mentions. In fact, your edits seem bent on removing Hart's significance in relation to other historians and theologians. And I think that your accusation of "badly" , "uninformative", and "non-compliant" is intended contra-the most important guidelines to provoke me. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)One source mentions Hart as one of a list of theologians holding the "theology, like nature, abhors a vacuum" the other mentions him as one of a number of presenters at a conference and thus of the resultant collected papers. Yes, they most certainly are "bare mentions". Oh, and your vague imprecations to WP:5P continue to be WP:Complete bollocks [completely and utterly meaningless]. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This shows readers what the Scholar Nichols has said about him:
Yes, and Nichols goes on to explicitly state what this viewpoint-"boat" is: "Theologizing, in other words, is influenced by culture". That, not the vague nautical metaphor leading up to it, not the list of other theologians coming to a similar viewpoint, is what Nichols says about Hart. It's not a particularly profound or noteworthy point, and few would bother to include such trivial mention at all, but at least it is clearly articulating what the source states about the topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The common factor (as shown in the quote) between these 6 figures is the basis of a substantial section of Nicholas book, how could it not be a noteworthy point? --Firefly322 (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then state what Nichols says about Hart, rather than the uninformative & non-notable name-dropping & vague-metaphor-dropping. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem bent on dismissing this important point. If it's not calling it unnoteworthy, then it's calling it name-dropping and a vague-metaphor. It's neither. It's a good point and short of a direct quote (which becomes Wikipedia:QUOTEFARM as you have tagged my other work when I try to satisfy these demands of yours) it's what the author has said.--Firefly322 (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That Nichols says the same thing about "Michael Horton (theologian), H. Richard Niebuhr, David F. Wells and historians Sidney Mead and Mark Noll" is not relevant in an article about Hart. That is why their inclusion is mere "name-dropping", and neither relevant nor noteworthy. Many people come up with the same ideas, there is no point whatsoever to list them all in an article about one of them. If coverage on him (as part of a group) is "the basis of a substantial section of Nicholas book", then surely it must say something more substantial about Hart than this. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book mentions Hart by name 18 times. And each time echoes this initial thesis in the book, placing Hart in line with these other 5 figures. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if Nichols merely continues to 'echo' this rather insubstantial point, then it is neither "significant coverage" nor (I would presume) a particularly interesting read. Surely he must say something additional about Hart? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nicholas is taking these 6 figures and comparing/contrasting them over length of book, referencing other historians/theologians along the way. Again it's not an insubstantial point. It's a substantial strut supporting the very framework of the book. It's the thesis of the book, telling us why Hart's work is important and how it is comparable to these other figures's work. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well half-thanks, I guess. (Still saying "continue to be WP:Complete bollocks." was not helpful to the content). But, no they are by no stretch of the imagination bare mentions. They are substantial mentions by 3rd parties. Bare mentions in Forbes and Wall Street Journal would be what Sastry was deleted for. In comparison, Hart's are substantial mentions. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:5P is the umbrella for all Wikipedia policy, so saying that my statement is "contra" to it is essentially saying 'somewhere somehow your statement violates some policy' -- which is vague to the point of complete and utter meaninglessness -- and I think "complete and utter meaninglessness" counts as "WP:Complete bollocks". 18:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you want to find out what does, and does not, count as "signficant coverage" then read the footnotes to WP:Notability. If you have any questions on these guidelines then raise it on WT:Notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will clarify. Your personal comments toward me run afoul of Wikipedia:EQ. And removing material from a stub article based on style policies written mostly for polishing up WP:GA seems tendentious. Also your heavy reliance on policies to explain yourself is at the heart of why WP:wikilawyering is not considered a good thing. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your 'clarification' has no basis in policy. Pointing out that a reverted edit violates policy IS NOT A VIOLATION OF WP:EQ! Pointing out that an article does not meet WP:NotabilityIS NOT A VIOLATION OF WP:EQ! Claiming WP:OWNERship ("Could you please stop editing in response to me?") and removal of legitimate templates IS A VIOLATION OF WP:EQ! Oh and WP:Vis not a "style polic[y] written mostly for polishing up WP:GA" HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're nitpicking a stub article using style guidelines! It's outrageous. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BASELESS accusations of "wikilawyering" & "nitpicking" are themselves GROSS VIOLATIONS OF WP:EQ! Kindly stop digging your hole deeper. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, sir. There is a clear and logical escalation leading up to these statements. At first, you seemed bent on call my work here "bad", "uninformative", and "non-compliant". (Try and be nice to you, but there's almost never any basic commaradie or common-sense respect from you.) Then we had several rounds of more of me and you talking on and on about a stub as if it were anywhere near a WP:GA. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"uninformative" = including Nichols' rhetorical flourish that "theology, like nature, abhors a vacuum" (which would mean nothing to any reader who hadn't read Nichols' book first) while neglecting the passage where Nichols states what he means by this florish: "Theologizing, in other words, is influenced by culture"
"policy&guideline-non-compliant" = violates WP:V ("Director of Academic Projects and Faculty Development at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute"), WP:WEASEL/WP:ASF (and thus WP:NPOV "His work has been placed in the same boat…"). I would note that both WP:V and WP:NPOV are part of WP:5P, and that, contrary to your claims, they are not "style policies written mostly for polishing up WP:GA" but core policy. Your dismissal of them is thus itself clear "WP:wikilawyering".
"badly worded" -- see above, particularly use of passive voice, failure to state who stated the opinion, and failure to state what the source explicitly stated he meant by a rather cryptic rhetorical flourish.
If you don't want to have the deficiencies of your edits spelled out in detail, then I would suggest that you attempt to rectify the deficiencies pointed out in the brief edit summary (in this case, "unsourced material , informal wording & WP:WEASEL-wording") rather than reflexively reverting to reinclude, and making a talkpage comment that indicated that you had not assimilated the relevant policy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Firefly322, your cited source ([3]) neither mentions "Director of Academic Projects and Faculty Development" or the "Intercollegiate Studies Institute", so cannot act as a source for "Director of Academic Projects and Faculty Development at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the following unsourced, mocking paragraph Mdmcginn (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC):
Dr. Hart is an avid photographer and general admirer of cats. He is known to wander ancient ruins, camera at the ready, in pursuit of his furry friends. Upon tracking down one such animal, Hart is known to photograph it, pet it, and name it, all while repeatedly mumbling "I'm feline so happy" to himself.[reply]
The title given for Dr. Hart in the second sentence of the article appears to be incorrect. The first footnote leads to a page that gives his title as ″Distinguished Visiting Assistant Professor of History.″ The article leaves out the word ″Assistant.″ Also, the second footnote, given as a further source for the information in the second sentence no longer works.Davisjrg5 (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on D. G. Hart. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
