Talk:Tropical cyclones in the Mascarene Islands

Removal of information on 1650, 1718 and 1730
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)