Talk:D. G. Hart

message: * Did the reversion mean that "the same boat" doesn't have a long history and isn't a perfectly good idiom.?  See 
* Did the reversion mean that Christianity Today or InterVarsity Press don't meet WP:RS? --Firefly322 (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: *Oh, and "Scholar" is both vague and unsourced WP:SYNTH. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 18:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Weasel words
?
!

message: :*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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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:Notability IS 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:V is not a "style polic[y] written mostly for polishing up WP:GA" HrafnTalkStalk(P) 19:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment is pure wp:wikilawyering.  It's not a legitimate response.  --Firefly322 (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're nitpicking a stub article using style guidelines!  It's outrageous. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Etiquette accusations

message: No Firefly322, your cited source () 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)
thread_title:  Failed verification 

message: I removed the following unsourced, mocking paragraph Mdmcginn (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal Life

message: 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)
thread_title: Title

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110918033730/http://wscal.edu:80/academics/faculty-bio/darryl-g-hart to http://wscal.edu/academics/faculty-bio/darryl-g-hart
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified