::I have incorporated these references and an additional secondary history ref in a new section called "Significance". [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 03:50, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Kurzon|Kurzon]] Please stop changing the lead sentence without discussion. It is inappropriate per sources and personally rude in my opinion. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 16:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
== Removing incorrect reference. ==
The reference
* {{cite book|last1=Alviar-Agnew |first1=Marissa |last2=Agnew |first2=Henry |chapter=4.3: The Nuclear Atom |chapter-url=https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Map%3A_Introductory_Chemistry_(Tro)/04%3A_Atoms_and_Elements/4.03%3A_The_Nuclear_Atom |title=Introductory Chemistry |publisher=[[LibreTexts]] |date=4 April 2016 |access-date=9 February 2021 }}
is very short. It claims
* "The electron was discovered by J. J. Thomson in 1897. The existence of protons was also known, as was the fact that atoms were neutral in charge. Since the intact atom had no net charge and the electron and proton had opposite charges, the next step after the discovery of subatomic particles was to figure out how these particles were arranged in the atom."
The proton was not properly identified until at least 1917. Thomson's models had no protons.
The reference appears in support of "as was the fact that atoms were neutral in charge". However this is not needed in the article because the reason Thomson needed positive charge was stability, not neutrality. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 23:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
:Also the ref says:
:* "In Thomson's plum pudding model of the atom, the electrons were embedded in a uniform sphere of positive charge like blueberries stuck into a muffin."
:which is complete baloney. [[User:Johnjbarton|Johnjbarton]] ([[User talk:Johnjbarton|talk]]) 23:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
