Talk:R. Joseph Hoffmann

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Two-thirds world" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Glad to see EALacey is rewriting it.  Looks much better. Roger Pearse 14:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: You mean to say that I must be biased against Hoffmann because he wrote an article abusing me?  Well, I suppose some people might be. But I only saw that article by chance, years after he wrote it, and thought it very amusing, actually.  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Deletion of article? 

message: The article is light on Hoffmann's non-scholarly activities as an atheist polemicist.  These are probably his most visible side online.  I'm going to look for referenced information on this and add it.  If people don't like these edits, do comment here and we can discuss it. What I am less clear about is whether to describe him as an atheist.  I think he is one; but I've also read sometime a statement by him that he didn't like the label.  Not sure how to best handle that. Roger Pearse 07:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheist polemicist 

message: As of today I have uploaded an extensively revamped version of this page.  My intent was to eliminate dead links, improve readability, and cite more recent and relevant elements of the subjects life. Littleboybrew (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Which you appear to have done in spades. Good work, page looks a lot better and it is nice to have a photo as well. Sgerbic (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major revision