 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.png){kind=small}
Untitled edit
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)