This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
@18.104.22.168, I'm glad you agree that the comet theory should be mentioned. However, your last edit removed most of the debunking explanation, which defeats your own point about due weight (i.e. the original version was in fact giving more weight to the debunking, rather than to the theory). I see that we currently reference three sources from Paris, where one would probably be plenty, or none at all, as you suggest with regard to using secondary sources instead, but I wouldn't rush to delete or revert; plus, I'm quite busy now. --Deeday-UK (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Referring to your preferred version as the "last good version" is both arrogant and insulting.
This nonsensical "theory" does not need extensive debunking. It just needs to be identifed as nonsense. WP: DUE, WP:FRINGE
Primary sources do not need citing; there are secondary sources. WP:RS, WP:WPNOTRS
The person is not notable and does not need to be referred to by name.
Say that someone made a nonsensical claim, if absolutely necessary; cite a source. Say that it was nonsense; cite a source. Job done, no need for anything else. If you disagree, next time do so without insulting me. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2019 (UTC)