Talk:David Bentley Hart

Note on creating a new David Bentley Hart bibliography

After requesting a peer review of this David Bentley Hart article, I received the suggestion in connection to Hart's long list of selected "Articles" that "if many of these works are notable, perhaps WP:SPINOUT into another article" because the lists were too long for the main article. Hart's career has been shaped in large part by his rhetorical punch as an essayist, and the wide variety of topics that he covers in his essays across an long list of national periodicals is a substantial part of his reputation and appeal. It would make sense to expand his bibliography along the lines of the George Orwell bibliography or the G. K. Chesterton bibliography. At the same time, this main David Bentley Hart article needs to be better developed and expanded. To make room for this work on the main article while also developing and referencing the content of Hart's bibliography a WP:SPINOUT made sense: David Bentley Hart bibliography Much feedback and help will be needed in determining the selected articles to keep in this main article.--Jjhake (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Moving all lists of works to bibliography

Seeking improve this article in keeping with some requested peer review feedback, I have moved all lists of works to the David Bentley Hart bibliography with links there. The goal is develop this main article flows smoothly from start to finish in prose form and to allow a full accounting of Hart's notable works to be maintained in its own article. Jjhake (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:David Bentley Hart/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Helloheart (talk · contribs) 00:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

What I'm thinking

I'll add more to this as I go:

• I see a sentence a lot to or to the affect of "See Hart's bibliography article for a full list" (I see it in the "Academic Career" section, and in "Literary Writing") and I see "See the main book article for more details." when it's talking about Roland in Moonlight. Do we really need this in the text?
• I see "Hart's greatest praise" in the Influences and key ideas section. Do we need "Greatest" used?
• Also in the Influences and key ideas section, it says "Hart's greatest praise, however, goes to Sergei Bulgakov who Hart has several times called the greatest theologian of the twentieth century". Should "the greatest theologian of the twentieth century" go in quotes?
• "Hart also maintains a popular subscription periodical" – Exactly how popular?

‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 00:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Helloheart: Others following this article would be most welcome to respond as well of course, but I'll share my thoughts on these points so far (and I'm glad to make edits or have you do so--whichever sounds best to you):

• I agree that it would be good to cut the "See Hart's bibliography..." and "See the main book article" notes and links and to simply keep the standard "Main article" bibliography link in place at the top of the "Literary writing" section (and perhaps also in the "See also" section at the bottom as it is).
• I agree that "greatest" is a fluffy word and good to cut.
• I agree that "the greatest theologian of the twentieth century" being in quotes would clarify the point there about Sergei Bulgakov, and that is the phrase that Hart has repeated. I should probably find one more reference as an example (and maybe drop timestamp notes into the references cited there).
• Regarding Hart's Leaves in the Wind subscription periodical, it might be better to call it a "subscription newsletter" than a "subscription periodical" (as that is the terms used by the Substack tool itself I think). As for the popularity, the subscription numbers are not public, but Hart has joked about how successful it has been for him personally as part of his income as a writer. What data is available publicly are not big numbers, so the word "popular" is not justified. There are eight videos posted to the YouTube channel of the same name that is connected to the newsletter, and the most-watch video there is at 8.5K views. His essays on the subscription service itself sometimes get just over 100 "comments" and about the same number of "hearts" from readers (on the high side). So I'd just drop the word popular and say: "Hart also maintains a subscription newsletter..."

Jjhake (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Helloheart: I've made all of the changes above as I hate to see improvements go undone. If this is unhelpful with the processes and protocols of a GA review, please let me know, and I will not do it next time. Thank you. Jjhake (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

@Jjhake, thanks, that looks good so far. I'll keep looking and tell you if I see anything else. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 03:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

This looks good!

It's well written (I learned a lot), follows the MoS. I double-checked the MoS for this review, and it was good except for a few problems which were solved. It, overall, is worthy of being a good article. Good job, @Jjhake. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 03:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this review and the improvements! Jjhake (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

David Bentley Hart and his dog Roland

• ... that writer and theologian David Bentley Hart translated the New Testament for Yale University Press and also believes in fairies? Source:
  "Remind them, and this is absolutely vital, that fairies are real." from the 2:42 mark here: Saving Scholé with David Bentley Hart and "Believing in fairies, ...right now, that's got to be part of orthodoxy, that's got to go right into the creed." from the 1:54 mark here at The Armstrong Archives: Otherworlds with David Bentley Hart.
  "Of course mermaids exist. Or, to be more precise, of course water spirits and magical marine beings of every kind are real and numerous and, in certain circumstances, somewhat dangerous. ...The modern reports of real encounters with mermaids or other water-spirits, such as two from Zimbabwe, one from South Africa, three from northeastern India, and so on ...are so ingenuous, well-attested, and credible that only a brute would refuse to believe them [and] there is a real moral imperative in not dismissing such tales as lies or delusions." David Bentley Hart (2020). "Selkies and Nixies: The Penguin Book of Mermaids." The Lamp: A Catholic Journal of Literature, Science, the Fine Arts, Etc. Issue 2. Assumption 2020. pp. 49-50.
  "He also sometimes argued (partly inspired by the writings of Owen Barfield) that human consciousness may have changed rather drastically over the epochs, and that perhaps the very frame of nature has altered with it. He believed that at one time human beings had been much better able to perceive certain dimensions of reality that, with our modern mechanistic view of nature, we no longer can" David Bentley Hart (November 2012), "Therapeutic Superstition".
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Jjhake (talk). Self-nominated at 04:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/David Bentley Hart; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• The suggested hook probably be split into two separate hooks. ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 18:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• @Helloheart: Thank you. I'm not really wanting to maintain multiple suggestions, and I'm just hoping to share the newly improved and recognized article about David Bentley Hart. I was hoping for a dramatic contrast between his being respected by church leaders (like the Archbishop of Canterbury) but also having some "wild" ideas (like belief in fairies). However, I can see how this might be too much to fit into a clear hook. What about just something like this instead: "... that writer and theologian David Bentley Hart believes in fairies and mermaids?" If that might be good, can I just edit my original suggestions above? Jjhake (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
• Or maybe: "... that writer and theologian David Bentley Hart translated the New Testament for Yale University Press and also believes in fairies?"

• QPQ unnecessary, GA recent enough, hook is definitely interesting. However, the fact that DBH believes in fairies is not explicitly stated. Instead, there are many references to his writing on fairies. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Thank you for this note and consideration. I could find more in print, but I've added these two citations within the related articles with DBH explicitly stating his belief in fairies. There is also a direct statement from him about his belief in mermaids that I already had included. Here they are:

• In Saving Scholé with David Bentley Hart at the 2:42 mark: "Remind them, and this is absolutely vital, that fairies are real."
• In The Armstrong Archives: Otherworlds with David Bentley Hart at the 1:54 mark: "Believing in fairies, ...right now, that's got to be part of orthodoxy, that's got to go right into the creed."

Let me know if I can help in any other way. This my first time with any DYK submission. Jjhake (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Two minor hang-ups, @Jjhake: the article only explicitly mentions his belief in fairies within references (the DYK fact has to be within the prose of the relevant article). Also, I saw you included passage on mermaids, but that's on another article. If you want me to make the relevant change so that the fact is in the prose, just let me know and I'll link the diff for you to review. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti:, thank you. I've just added this with three citations with the main article: "Hart writes often about fairies and has commented several times about his belief in them and related creatures." It's in the "Influences and key ideas" section. (For my part, I think that just mentioning fairies is plenty within the DYK but I've now included the mermaids quote within one of the citations within the main article as well.) Thanks for the help!

Good to go, Jjhake! Nice work and congratulations! As a note, please be careful when editing templates like this; as a couple of your edits kinda broke the page (no big deal; I do it all the time). ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

ALT1@Pbritti: Below is another idea that should be fully supported within article citations already. Jjhake (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC) ... that David Bentley Hart translated the New Testament for Yale University Press and believes in fairies with the encouragement of his dog Roland (pictured) who is the hero of a recent book?

@Jjhake: That's a tad on the wordier side (generally we want to keep DYKs tighter). I'll make a recommendation tomorrow morning Colorado time. That said, I'm very happy you decided to include the dog photo and I have to say that it's just stinking cool you convinced him to release that image to the public domain! ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Makes sense. If helpful, here's another try as well:

ALT2... that, in a recent book, David Bentley Hart talks with his dog Roland (pictured) about New Testament translation, philosophy of mind, and fairies?

I like the spirit of ALT2 but since the article doesn't explicitly discuss the contents of the dialogues (unless I'm missing something, which is entirely possible), I recommend

• ALT2A: ... that in a recent book, David Bentley Hart–New Testament translator and proponent of the existence of fairies–engages in dialogues with his dog Roland (pictured)?

Let me know if that is ok! ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: Yes, looks great to me! There is a lot getting packed in there, but I that's the name of the game with Hart, and your solution has the magic. Thank you for all of the help. Jjhake (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Approving hook ALT2A. @Jjhake: great job, hope to encounter you on the project more often! ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

A second peer review underway

For anyone else following edits on this article and interested in helping, please note that there is a second peer review underway here (by an exceptionally experienced Wikipedia editor) that is driving another round of article improvements with the hope of reaching featured article. Jjhake (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Navbox Template created for the Hart main and book articles

For anyone following the work on this page, please note that, as a part of an ongoing peer review (see topic above), a navbox has been created for this article and all articles for books by Hart. See Template:David Bentley Hart (and the bottom of this article on Hart as well as each book article).

As part of this, to help keep Hart's main article text clear and readable, some of the many wikilinks to Hart's interests, influences, and opponents (from the article text, the infobox, and the "See also" section in its entirety) have been relocated to this Navbox. Ideas and help welcome of course with these substantial (and ongoing) edits. Jjhake (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Improvements to lead

Note that within a peer review of this article underway here the point has been made that a “lead should normally have zero citations because it should be a summary of the body.” This is the last step in this second peer review (along with a third full article review recently as part of the recent GA review process). In the next couple of days, I plan to move all citations in the lead down into the article body and to rework the lead (as moderately as possible) so that the lead is a complete (and succinct) summary of the entire article body. Ideas and help with any of this task welcome with edits or comments here. Jjhake (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Update: In addition to the relocation of citations and the summarizing of all content from the article body within the lead (both done in recent edits), the final peer review comment recommended a first paragraph in the lead that would summarize just the key elements of the entire lead (a kind of "summary of the summary"). So I'll be seeking to do this next as the last item to implement from this most recent review. --Jjhake (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Featured article candidate work

For anyone following or able to help with ongoing edits on this article, please see the featured article candidate project page for a recent set of recommendations. Jjhake (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I'm excited that this article is scheduled to load onto the DYK feature for 24 hours starting on April 5 with the photo of David and Roland that you complimented at some point as I recall (which gave me the idea of nominating it there).

However, I'm also noting that the FAC for this article is getting archived for now as "stalled" with a recommendation that I look into the FAC mentoring scheme which is where I first contacted you. With this first attempt, I did get the image credentials improved and made a substantial number of edits responding to everything that I could find to do with the helpful criticisms from SchroCat. I don't have much time, but as I come back to this and other projects in the future, I'm curious if you would add any recommendations to this list of ideas for how to better prepare for next time:

1. Spend some time reviewing other FAC candidates and making suggestions just to get to know various other editors and better understanding how the process works.
2. See if any other editors might enjoy helping with improvements on this DBH article and possibly supporting with any future FAC nomination.
3. Contact another person or two on the FAC mentor list for possible help as well.

Thanks for all of your amazing support so far (and the several others who helped with the peer review and DYK nomination. I've never gotten this involved with an article before or watched the processes connected to these categories. It's been fun to learn! -- Jjhake (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, - you a good model for taking the processes as a fun learning experience! "Stalled" just means: lack of support over a certain period. I think I recommended some of what you plan to do (listen to other voices in a peer review, reviewing to interact with potential reviewers and understand the process better): go for it! See on DYK day who is interested in the article - those who make changes - and ask them for feedback. Your best bet for a mentor is SchroCat, experienced and well connected. I'm rather a niche person there, just at the beginning of the alphabet, - without FA this year ;) - Read some of his articles! - Sharing impressions from vacation on Madeira 20-30 March, pics now at 25 March. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you so much. Makes great sense. -- Jjhake (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Can't say I'm too fond of this nutter getting the attention he so desperately craves

I guess people find it funny but this is the perfect example of an "academic" best ignored. 145.102.152.2 (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Encyclopedias should not ignore those whose literary and academic works are recognized by some of the world's top academic institutions (several books with Yale UP) and reviewed within some of the world's top magazines (such as The Times Literary Supplement, Publishers Weekly, and Los Angeles Review of Books). -- Jjhake (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Trying to understand…

If I’m correct in interpreting David Hart, I can say unequivocally: The story of Jesus walking on water during the storm, where Peter gets out of the boat, and as he is drowning, Jesus approaches, lifts him up a proof text for understanding the early church fathers beliefs while writing the Nicene Creed. 2601:3C7:4200:1A1:9DFC:6432:F655:A42B (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)