Talk:Man into Wolf
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.png/50px-Pentagram_(Levi).png) |
Man into Wolf is supported by WikiProject Occult in order to expand, improve, and standardize articles related to the occult. Feel free to edit the article attached to this talk page and/or become a participating member.
|
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
 |
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
There's an extensive article on Robert Eisler, complete with bibliography, but no articles on his books. So I wrote a piece for Man Into Wolf, his magnum opus. He's highly regarded in certain circles and I was surprised when I read the book to find that he's really a psuedoscientist. I think that's the value of having a pseudoscience category; systematically eliminating articles from it is a mistake. awins 12:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I actually added it to the pseudoscience category. I am not systematically eliminating articles from it. So I don't understand what it is you are trying to tell me. DreamGuy 11:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
-If Eisler has an entry, then obviously his best-known work also deserves one. It's a classic, in any case.
Why would anyone bother to categorize an article that they think deserves deletion?
-I think it unnecessary to provide anything less than an objective description of the book; your additions were way too negative. Let the reader notice that the ideas are nuts, there's no need to explicitly mention it in every line. I find it hilarious that you thought I was expressing any agreement with his theories! My POV is that he's a delightful wacko. awins 12:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Anyone who doesn't know Eisler doesn't know pseudoscience--MiW's an acknowledged masterpiece of nut literature--and therefore shouldn't be editing articles in that category. (Much less earning barnstars for deleting same!)awins 12:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
