Talk:R. Joseph Hoffmann

Vanity

This looks like it belongs on your user page not as a main space article. Would you like it moved to your user page? Brian 21:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)btball

This person is a significant contemporary biblical and patristics scholar with an international reputation and this article should stand as is.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.58.7.187 (talk • contribs) 2006-06-27 18:59:35 (UTC)

It is, however, a vanity article. –Dicty (T/C) 12:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a cross reference bio. prepared by the research associate and containing verifiable biographical and bibliographical facts. --RJOSEPHHOFFMANN 12:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Two-thirds world"

The article uses the phrase "two-thirds world", lk'g it to Third World. The term was added in the 14-16 June 2007 edits of 76.180.91.218. If it is verifiable that he uses that term, the correct markup is

[[Third World|what he calls "the two-thirds world"

otherwise, the expression is just one WP-ignorant editor's slogan, and the markup must be simply

the Third World

as i have left it pending such verification.
--Jerzy•t 02:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Review of Porphyry

L'Année Philologique does not have exhaustive coverage of theological journals (for example, ATLA Religion finds reviews of Hoffmann's Marcion not listed in AP), so it is not a sound basis for concluding that a book on early Christianity received no academic reviews. As it happens, my search of the electronic version does turn up one review of Hoffmann's Porphyry:

Porphyry's Against the Christians : the literary remains / ed. and transl. with an introd. and epilogue by R. Joseph Hoffmann. Amherst (N. Y.) : Prometheus Books, 1994. 181 p. || JNStud 1997-1998 6 (2) : 115-126 Douglas P. Lackey.

JNStud is the Journal of Neoplatonic Studies, which is difficult to find in the UK – Copac finds copies at the Institute of Classical Studies in London, the Warburg Institute in London and the Sydney Jones Library in Liverpool. I am unsure whether I could even see a copy through interlibrary loan. EALacey (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent -- wish I could get hold of the article, but we can put this in. I note that my (referenced) statement was deleted... Roger Pearse 09:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

In the UK an ILL will supply a photocopy. Do you want to get hold of one, or shall I? (I'm willing). "Douglas P. Lackey"... what a splendid name! Roger Pearse 11:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

Deletion of article?

I don't look in on this article very often, but I was amused to discover that it is still being edited almost exclusively by one of Hoffmann's "associates" in order to promote the "great man". I see that all the material which presented Hoffmann as anything less than a great and important scholar, with external links, has been quietly removed, without any discussion on the talk page.

Others have commented in the past on the vanity nature of this page. The edits -- mainly anonymous, all designed to 'puff' Hoffmann, seem to be all by Hoffmann and his stooges. Perhaps the time has come to put in a request for deletion, on grounds of persistent abuse of Wikipedia?

I have restored the links to external reviews, and the notes on the poor reception that two of his books got, with references. If these disappear, as I expect them to, then I think that we will have to consider getting rid of this page.

Hoffmann seems to be a very minor American academic who has published some rather dull and unimportant academic pieces, together with some risible "translations" which, insofar as they attracted any notice, were slated. He is barely notable, in truth. I would generally feel that he should have an entry, as a published author. But what we're looking at here is clearly self-advertisment. Roger Pearse 10:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

Glad to see EALacey is rewriting it. Looks much better. Roger Pearse 14:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)

Based on Hoffmann's pillorying of Pearse in one of the external links, I can see why he wants to delete this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.90.94 (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I only saw that article by chance, and thought it very amusing, actually. But my concerns about this article have nothing to do with any supposed enmity by me against Hoffmann (who? after all, Hoffmann is a nobody). No, they are based on the general principle that articles in Wikipedia should be unbiased, and not used as a means of self-promotion. This means the bad as well as the good. Referencing reviews of his work (good or bad) helps the reader. Your own contribution of reviews was helpful. Removing mention of the lack of reviews was not. E.A.Lacey's note that there *was* a review of the Porphyry somewhere was also helpful. I don't understand why this is controversial. Would you tell us why you removed my referenced comments that his Celsus and Porphyry were hardly reviewed? This action might help Hoffmann. It helps no-one else. Let's try to reach some consensus here. Roger Pearse 11:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that I moved this comment to the right section, and placed the delete stuff at the bottom. Roger Pearse 11:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)