> And the article that actually was posted makes for a very workable entrée into all of the above, especially if you take the time to follow links from it or ot

> And the article that actually was posted makes for a very workable entrée into all of the above, especially if you take the time to follow links from it or otherwise investigate. I would not consider the article a "workable entrée" into any of those topics. Yes, I could do my own investigation into each of those things, but this article doesn't help much with that, nor does it manage to make me interested in any of those things. You can't expect people to read a bad article and then say "well, that was boring, but I bet if I follow every link here I'll eventually find something worth my time". > You're right! But that's excused by the fact that it's an uninteresting article about an interesting person, who sheds light on an interesting culture, about whom and about which probably everyone who's commented in this thread previously knew nothing. In light of that, it strikes me as odd it'd be so divisive. I don't agree. A poor article is not excused by having an interesting subject. A poor article will make a subject seem uninteresting, which is what happened here.