There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with ![]() ![]() |
Talk:A Modern Herbal
And why should we care?[edit]
Don't get me wrong, I actually like the article. What I think is missing is why we should care what a herbalist book from the 1930s claims about anything. Is it (still) a sort of go-to guide for appeal to nature chemophobes or a frequently cited source on altie websites? If so, I can totally see the relevancy of this article, but then I'd also suggest that this relevancy should be explicitly mentioned somewhere in the article. If not, then I might consider putting this article up for an assassination vote. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- A quick internet search suggests it's still tossed around the herbal remedy community as a common reference, particularly for newcomers. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)