This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Southern Hemisphere Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Southern Hemisphere work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Is there consensus on this removal of information which was sourced to a Cambridge/CNRS researcher? The article could mention the primary sources directly (mostly some French archives for the 18th century), but a secondary source is more appropriate for Wikipedia. If the/one goal is to avoid linking a controversial domain, we could just link the CiteSeerX record which is probably also more durable than the DOI of a relatively recent publisher. Nemo 07:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The location of the researcher is irrelevant, this is an OMICS journal and thus the peer-review is suspect. You will note that OMICS journals were aggressively purged after OMICS spammed Wikipedia, and the company's employes are banned. That is quite unusual. So is the FTC moving against an academic publisher. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defending OMICS. So what do you propose to do, that we reference the primary sources directly? If someone had quoted them in a newspaper article, we'd be happily using it as secondary source. Nemo 16:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't chido strike agalega? EdittingCyclone (talk) 18:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]