Talk:David Bentley Hart/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rewrite for the layperson

Untitled

I'm putting this at the top because I feel it's important. Right now, this article is completely incomprehensible to me. I found my way here by checking out my high school's article; this man is listed as a "notable alumnus" of Wilde Lake High School. When I got here, I had no clue what I was looking at. There are four big lists, a bunch of words it's assumed I understand, and a birthdate reference that makes no sense. Yes, I know what fluorit means, but come on, what does it tell me? The guy was alive in 2000, how is that useful? Who is David Bentley Hart? I would think the debate below about significance would be put to rest if the article was made accessible to everyone reading Wikipedia, not just people involved in this person's line of work. -Etoile (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of DB Hart's significance and warrant for an article in WP

I am not convinced that David Hart is prominent enough to warrant his inclusion in Wikipedia. His entry is more of a C.V. than a scholarly article. It should not be Wikipedia's policy to allow what are in effect ads for an academic job. Inclusion in Wikipedia should be based on achievement or prominence in one's field, and in these regards Dr Hart is average. If he is included, then so should every professor at every university in the United States be. uvaphdman 12:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)uvaphdman

I would argue that Hart (or at any rate his two books) certainly merits inclusion in Wikipedia. If there is room in Wikipedia for (extensive!) articles on abandoned railway branch lines, then there is certainly room for David Bentley Hart. I concur that this article is quite pathetically written, though, and needs some serious work to show the substance and significance of his theology, and ideally the sorts of debates that others have had with him -- and it should be NPOV, not hagiography or hamartiography. I think the second paragraph in the previous article was the former, and your additions the latter; these were the grounds on which I deleted them both. JayFout 22:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fr Fout, I AM a Ph.D., and I knew Hart at UVA, and I think I am in a better position to assess his work than you are. However, if you consider what I wrote to be hamartiography, then I am content to have my comments removed as long as the hagiography is out also. But NPOV? There is no such thing. Or are they not teaching you any postmodernity in Cambridge? Moreover, if extensive articles on abandoned railway branch lines are on Wikipedia then so should a biography of every person who has ever lived be. In fact, your argument merely cites one article with no place on Wikipedia in favor of another. Finally, it is no great trick getting a book (or even two!) published. All you have to do is find someone to publish it. Peer-reviewed articles are the measure of a scholar, not books. And in any case, you do not address at all my assertion that if Hart deserves to be in Wikipedia then so does virtually every academic who has ever worked. Is that Wikipedia's policy? Or does one merely have to conform to the NPOV "Joe Blow is an American writer. He published these two books" in order to qualify? Those sure are some high standards you've got there.

I agree with Fry Lin that this seems to be a personal attack, although I think deleting it (particularly in the talk section) is unwarranted, so I have restored it. You make a number of odd statements, to which I would like to call attention. First, you might well have known Hart at UVa -- one doesn't need to be terribly clever to have guessed your degree status and institution, perhaps even your gender -- but knowing him personally is different than being familiar with his work ('work' usually taken to mean 'what he has written' and not his diligence or competence in the classroom or department: I am not qualified to comment on the latter). Your comment on NPOV is rather odd, given that you appeal to 'the editors' on the grounds of NPOV to ask for a reversion. Your snarky comment aside, what you recognise -- that Wikipedia maintains a writing convention which it calls 'NPOV', which does not constitute a naive hermeneutics per se -- is precisely what motivated my NPOV comment. As for my reference to the Varsity Line, I am sorry that my rhetorical move wasn't clear: I was not arguing that it had no place here, just the opposite: if an article which (I imagine - I don't know you) you and I might consider unnecessary and trivial has a place here, then why not let DB Hart, even if he doesn't live up to the hype, have a page? My point wasn't clearly made and so I regret the analogy. I don't need to be lectured about academia and what constitutes 'the measure of a scholar'. DB Hart has published in peer-reviewed journals (Scottish Journal of Theology, Pro Ecclesia, Modern Theology), and in fact much of the work of these essays found their way into his book The Beauty of the Infinite. This book has been lauded in major publications by established theologians such as William Placher, Janet Martin Soskice, and Geoffrey Wainwright. A session of the Karl Barth Society of North America during the Autumn 2006 meeting of the American Academy of Religion occupied itself by interacting critically with The Beauty of the Infinite. Moreover, it is the subject of a 20-page discussion in the most recent Scottish Journal of Theology (vol. 70, #1) in which two established theologians respond to the book, and he responds. This does not argue that he or his work will stand the test of time, much less that he is correct, but it does seem to establish better-than-average 'achievement or prominence in one's field', as you mention in your first comment. He has certainly been noted, whether or not he is genuinely 'notable', and on those grounds I think merits a well-written article in WP. JayFout 15:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fr Fout, most of your points are well taken with these exceptions: first, I appealed to the editors on the grounds of NPOV because that is the stated policy of Wikipedia, and I thought I should play by your rules; second, this has not been a personal attack on Dr Hart, merely one to try to bring some balance to the entry, which you admitted did not originally conform to NPOV. That I went about this badly I concede. I think you can see from my last edit that I have learned from your instructions and have tried to keep the article NPOV (in my view, Fry Lin's addition of a paragraph containing his opinion of Hart's writing was not proper. NPOV should require the cited statements of authorities, not allow for the personal views of the general public). Moreover, if Hart's work is as worthwhile as you say (and I don't disagree), then it would be a favor for all of us if you would make some version of your last comment to me--the part pertaining to Hart--part of his entry, with appropriate citations, of course. I do apologize for the snarky remarks I directed towards Wikipedia and, indirectly, you. But I would like to observe what you no doubt already know, since you are pursuing a Ph.D. yourself: having a Ph.D. makes one an authority, however minor, in one's field. So my edits of the entry on Hart are authoritative ex officio. You, however, have not reached the status of authority in religious studies or philosophy, and so your edits and opinions carry correspondingly less weight. I'm not trying to sound arrogant; that's just in the nature of the degree (see Wikipedia's own entry on "Doctorate"). But I'm done now, and regret all the furor. You can make Hart out to be St Augustine redux and you won't hear another peep out of me. uvaphdman 20:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)uvaphdman

No it doesn't. What you are saying would constitute "Original Research" and therefore your current position is absolutely meaningless to the discussion. Also, as per notability, if the man has been cited per the guidelines he's worthy of an article. Not only do we have articles about abandoned railway lines, we have detailed synopsis of minor characters in current television. Your attempted appeal to a vague set of other academics who do not have pages is lame. If they're notable then they should get them. Write them up, cite them, and enjoy! Nickjost (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello I am the Italian translator of Hart's first book. His work is extremely important and is becoming very influential in Europe and England. I think someone with better English than mine should write a longer article on his thought and work, and the bibliography should be more complete. He is coming to the big English-German-French Phenomenology summit in Sibiu next year as one of the keynote speakers, and upcoming issues of many theological journals in England, France, and Italy will be dedicated to his thought. A full article should take note of all those discussions. I don't think America has ever produced any other theologian as significant or brilliant. Fry Lin 01:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

If the editors are listening, would you please revert the latest edits to the entry on David Bentley Hart to conform to Wikipedia's NPOV policy? And as for Fry Lin, with due respect I believe you should become more familiar with American theologians. If you did, you would not pronounce such absurdities as "America has [n]ever produced any other theologian as significant or brilliant." David Tracy, Alvin Plantinga, Langdon Gilkey are just three that spring to mind, all of whom are more significant than David Hart. He may become significant in time, but that time is not yet and proleptic canonization does the readers of Wikipedia no favors. uvaphdman 14:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)uvaphdman

Fry Lin again. This UVA-PhD-MAN clearly has some grudge against Hart. I don't know why exactly. All I know is that here in Rome and many other places I have been, his work causes great excitement. We have even set aside a whole session at the large European Phenomenology Conference in Sibiu next year to deal with his thought--we've only done that before for J-F Courtine. These personal attacks are disgraceful and very petulant. All his academic work appears in peer-reviewed journals, and I know from editorial experience that very many of them try to entice him into their pages. By the way, this UVA MAN may have a PhD--so what? What are his qualifications? How much has he published? This is ridiculous behavior. Hart is a very important figure, and in years to ome this entry will grow. Fry Lin

I am not positive why Uvaphdman's comments were deleted, but they should not be. This represents a conversation that we have had which might ultimately help the strength of the entry. We are not well served by silencing voices/ effacing texts with which we disagree. That, and I think it is against Wikipedia's policy. Perhaps in the next week or two, Fry Lin, we can strengthen the DB Hart article to be clearer about just what it is about his thinking that people find challenging, attractive, or dubious; in particular, a paragraph on The Beauty of the Infinite would be most welcome. As it is, it is a rather weak article and could be substantially improved. JayFout 21:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Jay Fout, I object only to a piece of obvious abuse masquerading as a critical concern. No one who knows Hart's work dismisses him as merely average. Some hate him, some love him, but serious scholars on both sides recognize that he is a new star rising with a remarkable range. These remarks from Mr UVAPhDMAN are meant as a peevish insult and ought to be discouraged. I can communicate in English well, but Im not very eloquent in English. Maybe someone who is better at it should put in something on BOTI. I'll ask some English friends. It really has made waves in the theological world, and I know Hart is sought after as a contributor to journals and a conference participant. And I have seen how many people turn out to hear him. But sorry for the deletions. I was angry at the malicious tone and the personal unpleasantness. And all that nonsense about how having a PhD makes one more authoritative.! A man who keeps mentioning his degree and makes it part of his name is being very silly. I also think it is appropriate to mention Hart's prose style, since everyone talks about that and it is a recognized aspect of his reputation. Not everyone likes it of course, but it is impressive. He is a writer after all and such remarks are within the boundaries of neutrality. Fry Lin 22:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Fry Lin, no worries. A major part of the value of Wikipedia (WP), I think, is that anyone can contribute, so long as what he or she says is true -- or more to the point, substantiated. That means that WP is about the content and not the person contributing. I don't particularly care if someone has a PhD or not, so long as they know what they are talking about. Obviously, I'm earning mine, so I'm not negating its value -- it is a useful exercise, and it is terrifically useful and important in certain limited contexts. But WP isn't one of them. Someone can be tremendously learned and self-taught and know a topic intimately without a doctoral-level research assessment. And it is possible to have a PhD and not be an expert even in your own field (although I have met very few like that). I have read Hart's Beauty of the Infinite myself, and I agree with your assessment that it is important; it has certainly made waves. Personally I find his more combative/dismissive style offputting, but his constructive work is quite helpful. He merits not only an article, but something well-written which gives readers some idea of the content of his writing (to demonstrate some of why it is important), and also some of the points his critics make, and all in an even-handed fashion. Also, we would do well to restore the institutional links to the article, which seem to have gotten lost, last I checked. I would like to work on this article myself some more (beyond the talk page!), and could use some help (although I will be pretty busy with other things for the next week). JayFout 01:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

To everyone: I know I said you wouldn't hear another peep out of me, but forgive me if I add this: I was wrong; I am chastened; I apologize. uvaphdman 02:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)uvaphdman

Uvaphdman: on my behalf, at least, apology accepted. And if you change your mind about your 'not a peep' decision, then why not help us make a better DB Hart article with your future edits? We've had three different perspectives expressed on him and his work on this talk page; synthesized (with whatever other contributors happen along), we might have a fine article indeed. JayFout 15:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I accept this as sincere too. I have tried to add some pertinent information. Maybe the article should be allowed to rest for a while until Hart's next books come out. There are five coming out I am told in the next year and a half. I will try to update the bibliography next week. With all due respect to uvaphdman's personal run-ins in the past, I know Hart's graduate students at Duke were very devoted to him, and he really is quite a major new voice in theology. He deserves a serious respectful article.Fry Lin 03:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Linda, my actions during this episode were indeed indefensible. However, as David himself pointed out to me (we have been in email communication throughout--he was not even aware he had a WP entry) my ridiculous and spiteful behavior has at least resulted in a much stronger article which, as you rightly observe, he does indeed deserve. So while I thoroughly regret what I did, I certainly do not regret the result, not that a felicitous result exculpates me in any way. As an aside, I realize David's students at Duke were devoted to him. It was my contention that this very devotion led them to write hagiography, just as what you call my "personal run-ins" may have led me to hamartiography. As Fr Fout observed, neither conformed to WP's NPOV policy. I still have my doubts about the NPOV-ness of that last paragraph on David's writing style (not that I disagree with it, but that's my POV), but as I said, I'm through meddling in the article. BTW, my "personal run-ins" with David are limited to two seminars I took from him at UVA, for both of which I received an "A", and many congenial conversations. I like David--I think it was envy more than any personal grudges that motivated my stupidity. uvaphdman 15:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)uvaphdman

Okay, I understand. You are very good to be so frank in your apologias. I don't think his students wrote the article though. If you go to Google you will see he has so many readers. I disagree on the remarks on the prose style paragraph. Other articles on writers call attention to their styles, and do so in very strong terms. He is a professional writer these days and so I think it appropriate. But thats my POV. Fry Lin 02:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Linda, David himself told me that one of his Duke students contributed the original entry. Thanks for accepting my apology. uvaphdman 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)uvaphdman

No, I asked Dr Hart. Youre right he did not know about this entry until all this editing began and he started getting questions. But he asked around and found out that an old student contributed to the bibliography. I honestly dont know who first put him in wikipaedia, but Im glad someone did. How did you guess my name's Linda? Was it so obvious? By the way, 2 years ago the Systematic Theology Section at the AAR had a session on Hart's big book, and the turn out was huge. It was a great session and that is where I approached Dr Hart about the Italian translation of his work. If you had been there you would have seen how much interest and debate he stirs up. Fry Lin 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Linda, David told me your name in passing; I hope you don't mind my using it. You are correct--I misunderstood what David told me about the origin of the entry. I'm sure David's work causes a stir wherever it is discussed. I think I have made it abundantly clear that my comments to the contrary were ill-informed and badly motivated. uvaphdman 22:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)uvaphdman

What is this doing here?

What is all that miscellany doing under "Patristics." As far as I can tell, all of this needs to be given seperate categories:

"His work is controversial in some respects, and he has his critics, particularly among Protestant thinkers in the Reformed tradition. His defense of the classical doctrine of divine apatheia, of the analogia entis, and other aspects of Christian tradition are all worked out within the web of his own thought, and elicit extensive debate. Recent issues of The Scottish Journal of Theology and New Blackfriars have devoted special space to his work.

As a cultural critic, he appears "conservative" in many respects, but his politics are difficult to define. On a number of occasions he has called himself an "anarchist monarchist." He is as suspicious of classical liberal capitalism as of centralized state socialism, and so his criticisms of modern culture are largely free from any conspicuous partisan allegiances.

Hart's writings are known for their theology and intellectual passion.

Hart is a relative of early-20th century baseball player Jack Bentley" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.150.131 (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible resources for later

I removed the following from the article, because the website it refers to hasn't been updated in nearly a year. Perhaps it can be restored in future. JayFout 15:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

External links

• [1] – David B. Hart Appreciation Blog

Puffery

Article as it stands is a puff piece. I would hope that this be clear to anyone reading it, if not I can cite specific examples. Has 0 references. Count 'em: 1, 2, 0. He may be a great guy, but this article is about as NPOV as a bumper sticker. --thezeus18

From the section called Works

The article stated: Hart's work exhibits a knowledge of the Western philosophical tradition, from classical antiquity to postmodernity, as well as a knowledge of world literature, art, history, and culture. His own theology and philosophy are deeply informed by the writings of the Church Fathers and are engaged in many of the central themes of classical, modern and Continental philosophy. Rowan Williams, John Milbank, Geoffrey Wainwright, Robert Jenson, Janet Martin Soskice, Reinhard Hütter, and others have praised his work. Many of the large themes of his work in philosophical theology are summarized in his essay "The Offering of Names" (see bibliography below). The fullest exposition of his theological vision, however, is his The Beauty of the Infinite.

In recent years, Hart has also written extensively on evil and suffering. Many of these texts are haunted by an obvious horror at the suffering of children, and at times there are hints of what might be called asceticism, with some reproaches to Gnosticism.

This reads like an ad or a blurb. Citations are missing, and the relevance as well as the neutrality are doubtful. -- Zz (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Professor Hart's Politics

To any and all concerned:

Professor Hart's recent Facebook post clearing up misconceptions regarding his politics provides ample information that would provide edifying supplement to his Wikipedia page, in my opinion. His references to figures like John Ruskin and William Morris (linkable, of course, on Wikipedia) would clarify at least in part the provenance of his political and social outlook.

DBH admirer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.93.195.245 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Is this necessary? As far as I can tell, this is a minor aspect of an article that needs considerable expansion in other directions. He has clearly and unambiguously identified himself as a democratic socialist in the links; people can read and watch and judge for themselves. This is certainly not the place to qualify or adjust his beliefs for him. Buxompiglet (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

OK, I give in. You're doing a terrific job as custodian of Dr. Hart's page. Almost makes one wonder if "Buxompiglet" is DBH himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.93.195.245 (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No, sorry dude. Just curious why you seem to want to cherrypick his interviews for something that makes him sound other than he is, as when you isolated the one ambiguous-sounding line in an interview that was otherwise anything but, posting that instead of, say, his praise for Kropotkin. But hey, if you think I'm DBH, you'll naturally agree there's no need to qualify. Buxompiglet (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

No, you're absolutely right. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is a hell of a thing sometimes. I've learned a lot about DBH in this exchange, though I've given you quite the headache, haven't I? Stranger, I'm sincerely sorry for that. I'll retire now from this frankly arbitrary and neurosis-driven misadventure. To cherrypick one more line from that interview, "Namaste" ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.93.195.245 (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)