Doubting Rothman== 

 The article cites as fact Rothman's doubt that Young actually carried out his experiment, spending a considerable amount of time on that issue.  It would be helpful to know who else doubts it besides those who accept Rothman on blind faith.  Repeating isolated theories as fact runs the risk of filling Wikipedia up with half-truths shouted at full volume.  One could then sympathize with the man who wanted to charge $10 per printed Wikipedia article, who when confronted with the statement in Wikipedia that it is free replied, "You believe everything you read in Wikipedia?" 

 If Rothman is right about the experiment not having been performed, we would have the interesting situation of someone who, in a culture totally wedded to the corpuscular theory of light, guesses its wavelength and then describes a gedankenexperiment that if carried out would demonstrate quantitatively the wave nature of light.  To accomplish this without actually doing the slit experiment, he or an accomplice would either have had to carry out some other experiment yielding that information involving for example Newton's rings (in which case why would he not report that experiment instead?), or be visited by a time traveler from the future.     

 :Yeah, I'm not really sure why it's such a big deal for a scientist to reuse explanatory diagrams.  That seems to be the foundation of the entire suspicion.  —    
 ::It seems that this problem was disposed of long ago.    

 ==