Talk:Superseded theories in science

message: The 2006 Featured Article review noted the absence of referencs in this article and since May 2010 it has been flagged for lack of citations; the problem has been subsequently discussed on the talk page (now archived). Since little progress has made, I am providing below an example of what this page would look like if all items lacking "one or more references" were removed, in conformance with the Manual of Style, which requires that "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references)".
I don't really want to make such a drastic edit without some comment, but since there has been no reaction to this policy issue for more than a decade, I am ready to perform such a drastic deletion.  I hope the addition of sources to the list will make such a drastic edit unnecessary.
===Biology===
* Scientific racism - the theory that humanity consists of physically discrete superior or inferior races. Rendered obsolete by Human evolutionary genetics and modern anthropology.
* Germ line theory, explained immunoglobulin diversity by proposing that each antibody was encoded in a separate germline gene.
===Chemistry===
===Physics===
* Progression of atomic theory
**John Dalton's model of the atom, which held that atoms are indivisible and indestructible (superseded by nuclear physics) and that all atoms of a given element are identical in mass (superseded by discovery of atomic isotopes).
===Astronomy and cosmology===
===Geography and climate===
* Inland sea of AustraliaAn inland sea, the Eromanga Sea, did exist there in the Mesozoic, but not during any period of human history
===Geology===
===Psychology===
* Pure behaviorist explanations for language acquisition in infancy, falsified by the study of cognitive adaptations for language.
* Psychomotor patterning, a pseudoscientific approach to the treatment of intellectual disabilities, brain injury, learning disabilities, and other cognitive diseases.
 
===Medicine===
:
:
:
--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's a reason to delete list items where there's an internal link to a Wikipedia article, with plenty of references covering the history and replacement of the idea. To meet the technical requirement that each article be supported by in-article citations, it makes sense to copy one or two citations from the linked articles into this one; that would be more productive than just deleting when there's no real verification crisis. -- Beland (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of Citations 

message: :
:
:
--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's a reason to delete list items where there's an internal link to a Wikipedia article, with plenty of references covering the history and replacement of the idea. To meet the technical requirement that each article be supported by in-article citations, it makes sense to copy one or two citations from the linked articles into this one; that would be more productive than just deleting when there's no real verification crisis. -- Beland (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Medicine

message: Hello, thanks for your efforts to provide easy-access to science.
I just wonder if the first 3 paragraph will read better if the current 2nd and 3rd paragraph exchange.
The current 3rd paragraph is talking about "totally discarded theory( phlogiston theory)" and  "still-working theory (Newtonian physics)".
The current 2nd paragraph is about more details of "still-working theory" in "Newtonian physics" and "flat Earth".
So it read better with first current 3rd paragraph of general introduction and then current 2nd paragraph of more details
Thanks
From user of Joyvario， 
but lost the log-in  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.192.17.5 (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The current order reads well to me. -- Beland (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, I started rewriting the first paragraph, and I think the suggested order is indeed better. Though with a bit of a rewrite there as well. -- Beland (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sequence of first 3 paragraphs 

message: Seems to me that this entry overstates the notion that classical physics has been "superseded" by quantum mechanics and relativity and incorrectly states that it has been "discarded".  The parent article says this:
:Classical physical concepts are often used when modern theories are unnecessarily complex for a particular situation... In practice, physical objects ranging from those larger than atoms and molecules, to objects in the macroscopic and astronomical realm, can be well-described (understood) with classical mechanics. ...we can usually ignore quantum mechanics when dealing with everyday objects and the classical description will suffice.
The notion that classical physics has been discarded by the scientific and engineering communities is absurd. This topic is well covered in the Theories now considered incomplete section, so no need to (erroneously) replicate it under Discarded theories section. I'm removing the entry.Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical physics entry under discarded theories

message: Newton's sine-square law of air resistance is no longer red-linked. I invite editors here to improve what is more or less a stub at this point. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newton's sine-square law of air resistance