Talk:Man into Wolf

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Occult Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Untitled

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)[reply]

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)[reply]