Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 2

message: This part is dubious: offer the topic's most interesting points, including a mention of the topic's most prominent controversies. The lead section should offer the most relevant uncontroversial points, it's no battleground. Templates (or their substituted output) indicating problems like "hoax", "stub", "mergeto", etc. are okay, but hopefully no permanent part of a lead section. -- Omniplex 16:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A newspaper will grab the attention of a reader by mention of the topic's most prominent controversies.  As an extreme example, some editors, in an article about how perfectly sphereical the earth is, the editors would have the lead section should include a reference to how Flat Earth it is, too.  It is, perhaps, a way of thinking, a following of advertising's philosophy of "Quickly Catch the Attention of the Reader".  I find myself in agreement with Omniplex.  Wikipedia is a platform to present the knowledge Mankind has created.  As Law and Choas are opposites, knowledge and controversy are often opposite.  Presenting knowledge in terms of its contoversy might be effective once in a while.  But it would be a bad guideline. Terryeo 18:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies 

message: Do we have a guideline about linking words in the bolded titles, (for example, in the Khattab ibn Nufayl article)? If not, we should, I think it looks really ugly. --Cúchullain t/c 05:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking in article titles

message: Is there any template to be placed in the articles asking for someone to expand the lead? Afonso Silva 17:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding the lead

message: <<< Sorry, but this whole conversation evades me. Policy cannot be bypassed by a guideline or, as in this case, a style guide. Consensus of editors cannot bypass policy either. References should be provided in article's lead, and the rationale is quite simple: Many readers do not explore the article itself, but are content to read just the lead. That is why a lead needs to summarize the main points, and where necessary  provide references. The need to comply with WP:V and apply WP:CITE includes all material in the article, including the lead. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To the extent the lead summarizes material contained in the article, there is no need to duplicate references in the lead. Rjensen 17:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything contentious or likely to be challenged (or anything that actually is challenged), and any quotes, have to be referenced, whether they are in the lead or not. WP:V doesn't make any exceptions for the introduction. Where did this idea come from that the lead section is different? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the discussion above, Rjensen, you'll see there was no consensus to add that references aren't necessary in the lead section, and the change was proposed by Joshbuddy, who is not a regular editor. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think it matters who proposed the change, Slim. That said, this is a style guideline; the page sets down what should happen, unless there's a good reason to argue otherwise. The examples you put above are good arguments of a lede that needs citations; however, I can see other places (e.g. Hurricane Katrina) that need to be summarized extensively in order to have a decent lead, and in which references for everything aren't the best idea. I don't think anyone is arguing about contentious points being referenced, but rather about having superfluous references. Titoxd(?!?) 19:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The lead section will have information that is covered in more detail in later paragraphs.  We have markup capability to jump to any subheading if we link the subheading to a word in the lead with a pipe. Then the jumped to subheading should contain the references which substantiate any statement the lead makes.  On the subject of references within the lead, I have seen strong objections to external links in the lead.  Perhaps external links in the lead is the kind of reference the discussion revolves around? Terryeo 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it does make a difference who proposed it, Tito, because an experienced editor would know that no proposal here can supercede WP:V. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But that's where we disagree: having references in the lead or outside the lead does not affect WP:V. As long as we have the references, we've satisfied that requirement. Titoxd(?!?) 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any claim that is challenged needs a reference; it doesn't matter where it is in the article. It could be repeated a thousand times, if someone challenges an example of it in the intro, you have to add a reference. Also, you forget that articles aren't written by just one editor. Something could be unreferenced in the intro, but referenced elsewhere in the text; then someone removes the later one, and you're left with the unreferenced material in the lead. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  In that we'll have to agree to disagree. If the text is challenged, you can just say "scroll down" and that will solve the issue. If the reference is removed, then you just readd it, as it will be available in the history anyways. Titoxd(?!?) 22:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. But why not just have it in the intro in the first place? ;-D SlimVirgin (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed, indeed... We do not need to specify "do not add references to the lead", neither we have to say "you must add references to the lead". In contentious topics, we should expect editors to add references to the lead, as readers do not always go beyond the article's lead. The new ref format allows for named refs, so there is no problem in adding several refs links to to same reference. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:V]]

message: Say to use the STRONG html tag and not B, for Bold title.
Same for many others of these advice pages.
--User:Jidanni 2006-07-26
:html directly in articles is frowned upon. We already have a wiki format to do that anyway, and it would still be semantically not very appropriate. Circeus 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Semantically the ideal would probably be  or something.  But wiki format is definitely preferred, yes, because it's easier to read.  It's not good semantics, but I say this in a nested definition list used for indentation, so . . . —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  STRONG vs. B 

message: Writing about concepts	Explanation	
Encyclopedias are, by most definitions, limited to using an expository writing style —similar to most "news style" writing —where the main idea is that the material should be written objectively and descriptively. 
Within that framework, there are some important distinctions for how one should approach numerous different article "types" —all of which fall into the two basic classes of objects (ie. "people, places, or things") and concepts (ie. ideas, views, ideologies). These differ substantively in a way that requires them to be presented according to (slightly) different modes:
* Object articles deal with particular objects, and this definition is accomplished largely through disambiguation guidelines, to distinguish different objects with similar names. 
* Concept articles, in order to properly define the topic in an unambiguous way, must "define" the concept by way of relative description (ie. "shaping" the concept) by reference to other concepts. This is because a "concept" (by definition) is an abstraction which has meaning only in reference to other concept-abstractions.
Hence it is often quite simple and straightforward to describe objects, and writing ledes for object articles is likewise straightforward.
On the other hand, it is often quite difficult to describe concepts, because doing so depends on reference to other concepts —which can be controversial both in terms of their reference as well as their very definition.  
This is most clearly seen in articles about philosophical topics, were ideas such as "truth", "goodness," and even philosophy itself (!) are hugely debated in accordance with various notions about both the meaning of the term, as well as how this meaning should be described and presented. 
Political concepts are often even more difficult, as such concepts, by nature, are ones for which different sides attempt to redefine (or "spin") in ways which promote their particular claim or agenda.
Below are some basic guidelines for ledes within concept articles. (Note that 2 applies to object articles as well, as do 3 and 4, though these would typically be placed in "history" or "background" sections.)
# Context - describing the category or field in which the topic belongs. 
# Definition - what the term refers to as it is used in the given context.
# Explanation - deeper meaning and background. 
# Overview - how the topical context relates to other topics. 
# Contrast - related, similar, or opposite terms, to disambiguate from the topic.	Wikipedia, like other encyclopedias and newspapers, uses the expository writing mode. We have found that articles about objects (ie. "people, places, or things") are different from articles about concepts (ie. ideas, views) in terms of their mode of writing, and that this difference affects how their first sections should be written.
So while is often quite simple and straightforward to write articles which describe particular objects, it is often quite difficult to describe inclusive general concepts, because concepts are largely defined by reference to other concepts —which often can be controversial in both their definition and relevance to the topic.
Below are some basic guidelines for writing ledes within concept articles. Note that 2 applies to object articles as well, as do 3 and 4, though these would typically be placed in "history" or "background" sections.
# Context - describing the category or field in which the topic belongs.
# Definition - what the term refers to as it is used in the given context.
# Explanation - deeper meaning and background.
# Overview - how the topical context relates to other topics.
# Contrast - related, similar, or opposite terms, to disambiguate from the topic.
Examples of commonly problematic "concept topics" are found in all areas of philosophy, science, religion, and sociology, including mathematics (philosophy) and politics (sociology). For example, in mathematics, high level concepts may be written in a way which attempts to be succinct and descriptive by using only specialized language, rather than giving a more general overview. 
Political concepts are often even more difficult, as different sides attempt to redefine (or "spin") these in ways which promote their particular claim or agenda.	
Encyclopedias are, by most definitions, limited to using an expository writing style —similar to most "news style" writing. 
No, I don't think so.  You have stated that encyclopedic writing is quite similar, indeed, even of the same style as news writing.  I don't think so.  In fact, the two differ greatly.  But that is a question of philosophy.  If your interest is in that area, then the person you would need to contact is the founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo. He could then, were you influential enough, could rewrite and change the foundation which all Wikipedia articles are based on and rooted in.  Thus, your newscast reporting sort of writing could be used freely.  Unfortunately, right now, today, that is not the sitution.  Instead, right now, if you wish to continue to effect guidelines, it would behoove all of us for you to understand the 3 policies on which our guidelines are based. Terryeo 02:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously didnt read the article, or maybe its completely wrong and you need to rewrite it for us: "Expository writing is a mode of writing in which the purpose of the author is to inform, explain, describe or define his or her subject to the reader." Thanks for your informed comments though. :[ -Ste|vertigo 17:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll be blunt with you Stevertigo.  I am not going to rewrite an article for you.  An enclyclopedia is not a newspaper article.  They serve different publics and they have, therefore, different purposes.  Happy Ho Ho's. Terryeo 03:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again for youre informed comments. I wonder though if you understand the meaning of the word "like" to indicate a comparison or relation between one thing and another. So, within the umbrella of expository writing, news and encyclopedic form are examples thereof which are "like" each other but not each other. Hence the different names. And there was no claim that they are equivalent in the writing. Neither fits entirely into the other three basic writing categories, but maybe your defintion of news and encyclopedia writing contains elements of persuation, narrative, and literal description,  in which case you could write to Jimbo and tell him how to rewrite the rules. Thanks again, again. -Ste|vertigo 05:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Frankly, I rather like Jimbo's involvement and statement as appears in NPOV and that is, in the main, why I edit here. Terryeo 07:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [edit] 

message: Further discussion of references in the lead section, and also general issues for references in summary-style articles versus references in detailed daughter articles of summary-style articles, is taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#References_in_the_lead_section. One promising idea from that discussion came when I was directed to this guideline Wikipedia:Summary_style#Citations_and_external_links. The idea is that summary-style sections, of which the lead section is a particular type, need only contain general references (eg. to a biography of a famous person), rather than the specific chapter-by-chapter and page-by-page references that may be found in the main body of the article. Of course, controversial statements, which should be included in the lead section if they are central to the subject of the article, still need a detailed supporting reference. However, I submit that if the controversial statement is about an obscure detail, then the statement should be dropped from the lead section because it is going into too much detail for a summary of the article. ie. Relevance to a summary trumps controversiality, and statements (controversial or not) should only appear in the lead section if they concern key aspects of the subject of the article.
ie.
*When referencing information-dense lead sections, it is best to use references to similarly information-dense sources covering the topic as a whole (eg. an authoritative biography of a famous person), rather than detailed references for each specific detail. Detailed references for the corresponding specific details should be provided in the main body of the article.
*Controversial statements in the lead section should have a detailed reference to support them. For example, statements in the lead section of articles covering current events, or statements in the lead section of articles about a controversy.
*In general, lead sections should not have excessive, or over-detailed referencing, as this will spoil the flow of the text and reduce readability. One way to approach this is to provide a reference at the end of each paragraph of the lead section, or a note to the references for that paragraph.
*If the lead section of an article has excessive referencing, or requests for more extensive referencing, this may be a sign that the lead section has become too detailed. A rewrite may be needed to summarise the information, provide a general reference, and move details and their references down to the main body of the article and merge with the existing details.
Do these four points sound reasonable, and can they be incorporated somehow into the guidelines here at Wikipedia:Lead section? Carcharoth 11:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion - Our product is a readable article which communicates the subject to the reader.  A scholarly article might reference differently than a Wikipedia article.  Here, our reader is the common person.  Certainly we want to reference our statements.  My feeling is, let us neither deny cites in the lead section, nor encourage excessive cites in the lead section.  That would be enough. Terryeo 15:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Unfortunately none of this is made clear in the guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead section. Can you suggest a way to say this in the guidelines? Carcharoth 22:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Carcharoth, I disagree. As someone said on the other page, one size doesn't fit all. Lead sections have to be referenced just like any other section: how many references depends on the content, and the content depends on the topic. It's best to discuss referencing issues on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, which is the relevant policy page. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do agree on something actually. I now agree that lead sections do need to be referenced, just like any other section (for the record, I only ever wanted to avoid duplicating references already present further down in an article, or having excessive references in what is meant to be a summary section - I have never suggested not referencing anything). I just think that the style in which they are referenced should be described in the guidelines to (a) guide people (there is confusion about this, as the many different styles show - some articles have no references at all in the lead section, some have a few, and some have so many that it interferes with the readability of what should be an accessible part of the article) and (b) to promote an accessible and readable style of referencing in the lead section to avoid excessive referencing of every single point raised in what is usually a section packed with information. My suggestions above may be a bit over-prescriptive, and I agree that one size doesn't fit all, but can we try and agree on some sort of guidelines? I'll start a new section below with a new suggestion. As for the correct location for this discussion, you are sending me to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, and at least one editor over there is saying these issues need to be discussed here instead. So forgive me if that leaves me confused over whether to follow that editor's suggestion or your one. Carcharoth 22:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're discussing whether certain points, issues, or sections ought to be referenced, discuss it at WP:V. If you're discussing how to write references, go to WP:CITE. If you're discussing other issues about the lead, here is good. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further discussion of references in the lead section 

message: On June 3rd 2006, admin Joshbuddy added "References should not be included in the lead" to the (Lead section) article, under "Requirements", "Provide overview". On July 1st 2006, the lead section of the (Lead section) article stated that "points should be expanded upon later in the article, and the appropriate references added at that point, rather than in the lead section". On July 4th 2006, admin SlimVirgin made an edit described as "removed strange point about references". She made a related deletion some days later. Now (August 28th 2006) the (Lead section) article merely says the lead section "should be carefully sourced".
I've written lead sections for two different articles. At the time I wrote those sections, the (Lead section) article very clearly indicated that contributors should put NO REFERENCES in a lead section. So I followed the "directions". But now, the (Lead section) article SEEMS to direct that references/citations are REQUIRED in a lead section. But it's NOT CLEAR, because the phrase "should be carefully sourced" is TOO VAGUE to be helpful.
Logically, there are three possibilities:
#Lead sections need to INCLUDE supporting citations to references.
#Lead sections need to EXCLUDE supporting citations to references.
#The use of supporting citations to references, in lead sections, is OPTIONAL.
As long as this point remains vague, as it is now, lead sections in Wikipedia articles will remain CHAOTIC as regards the usage of citations. Two months ago, it was NO CITATIONS in lead. Now, it SEEMS to be USE CITATIONS in lead. Why should any contributor not expect that it will change again next month? Will it be a "ping pong" situation? Are contributors expected to alternately include and exclude citations in lead sections, every other month? Here's a suggestion for improvement --- Wikipedia "policies", or "guides", or whatever else they are called, should be "elected", and should have a "term of office" of one calendar year (starting January 1st and ending December 31st). That way, revision of articles due solely to changes in such "policies"/"guides" will need to be done only once per year, at a pre-set time known in advance to anyone who participates. And Wikipedia can have year-correlated versions, with respect to the "policies"/"guides". Once-a-year arguments over style will be much easier on the soul than constant arguments and ping-pong revisions.
Agent X 15:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant policy is WP:V, so that's the page to follow when it comes to references. Related policies are WP:NOR and WP:BLP and a related guideline is WP:RS. No one should have added the no-references-in-the-lead point to this page in the first place, and that's what caused the confusion. It has now been returned to be in line with the policies, which means that anything challenged or likely to be challenged (and, of course, any quotes) should be referenced, whether in the lead or anywhere else. And in biographies of living persons, all negative material must be referenced or removed. Hope that helps. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except that iff the "contentionus" material in the lead section is just a brief one-sentence summary of a well-referenced and expanded section further down in the article, there's no need to have a redundant citation in the lead. Titoxd(?!?) 16:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is. Lead sections are referenced just like any other. They're no different. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Lead section" article should be clear on citations in lead sections

message: There is guidance on the Lead Section in at least three different Help pages.
1) The Help page Wikipedia:Lead section reads: The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establish context, and define the terms.
2) The Help page Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles reads: should establish significances, large implications and why we should care. If the subject is amenable to definition, the first sentence should give a concise, conceptually sound definition that puts the article in context. Then proceed with a description. The definition should be as clear to the nonspecialist as the subject matter allows.
3) The Help page Wikipedia:Guide to layout reads: Lead section Normally, the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow.
1) mentions “define the terms”;                                      
2) mentions “definition that puts the article in context. Then proceed with a description. The definition should be as clear”;              
3) mentions “summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject”.
Some articles like Marketing, Advertising and others, at least in this area, have a very short Lead Section, just an assertive definition, clearly from the industry. I think there is very little room for assertive definitions in a encyclopedia, particularly in cases when the articles subsequently mention several definitions.            
I wouldn’t be surprised if whoever wrote the article (in particular the Lead Section) was at least a little bit misled by the above mentioned Help pages or interpreted it according to own intentions.
I suggest the term definition be removed from the guidance to the Lead Section in the different Help pages and be replaced by some other like description, for instance, and further emphasis be put on mentioning the most important points of the article and on the explanation of the subject in the Lead Section.
DavidMarciano 14:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a number of articles it really makes a good deal of sense to define the main term of the article.  I have no idea what words are new to the reading public, but certainly some of our articles present brand new words which the reader has not encountered before.  I think it is useful to a reader to be reading an article, find a new term which is linked, click to that article and find a definition of it in the lead section.  But yes, in some articles a definition would be distracting and perhaps, redundant. Terryeo 17:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Section: definitions or descriptions? 

message: This is a guideline so people come to this article to obtain direction.  Writing in the passive voice in the first paragraph does our editors a disservice, I think.  I think we should have active voice with words like "should contain" and "one to four paragraphs", stated cleanly.  I've changed the first paragraph but have not removed any of its meaning, or any of its points (I think). Discussion welcome. Terryeo 17:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tweaked it a bit more because there was some repetition (not anything you did, but from before you edited it). SlimVirgin (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As they say in Hollywood, "looks good to me". Terryeo 07:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed passive voice from the lead paragraphs 

message: Does this guideline advocate changes like this one? Seems really weird to me. Even the example given in the guide to writing better articles has a significant number of links. It would be a major style change to remove all of the links from all of our opening paragraphs, and I'm not sure that's really supported by consensus. I've worked on a lot of FAs and GAs and I've never seen anything like it. Anyone? Kafziel Talk 20:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not advocated on this page, Kafziel, but it was probably done because there was a lot of blue in the lead, which makes it hard to read, and which is often unnecessary. People who want to look up Spain will know how to do so. Just my opinion, of course. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicer to look at, sure. But by that logic, we shouldn't need to link to anything at all, since readers should just know how to look it up on their own. Articles would look much nicer without any blue links. De-linking things like "state" and "United States" (which are very much related to the article on California) doesn't seem to be supported by any precedents I've seen; in fact, just for simple comparison the articles on the other 49 states have those links. I'd be surprised to see a single Featured Article that didn't have links in the intro. Kafziel Talk 20:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone's saying there should be none, just not too many. Linking the names of every country and every state, when several are mentioned in a row, and then even the word "state" would be regarded as overkill by many editors. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the edit summary in that diff, that editor is saying that there should be no links in the intro of any article. I mean, if you can't link to U.S. state in an article about a U.S. state, what can you link to? Besides - guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. 1,154 Featured Articles can't all be wrong. (Well, they can... but they're not.) Anyway, he seems to have stopped with just this one, so I'll wait and see how things go from here. Kafziel Talk 23:55, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "The Cascadia Earthquake was a big earthquake in the Pacific Northwest."
is it recommended to add a link to one of the bold words, in this case, Cascadia, or is it recommended to avoid this by adding an explicit sentence like "C. here refers to ..."? I'm always in favor of sweat and short intros, so I'm gonna do this, but I haven't seen it in many other cases where I find it would make sense. — Sebastian (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in the intro 

message: In an intro like 
: "The Cascadia Earthquake was a big earthquake in the Pacific Northwest."
is it recommended to add a link to one of the bold words, in this case, Cascadia, or is it recommended to avoid this by adding an explicit sentence like "C. here refers to ..."? I'm always in favor of sweat and short intros, so I'm gonna do this, but I haven't seen it in many other cases where I find it would make sense. — Sebastian (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link in bolded subject 

message: "A significant argument not mentioned after the lead should not be mentioned in the lead."—Should the last word be "subsequent text" or perhaps "body of the article"? Tony 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  query 

message: My fellow wikipedians: I have recently created an essay entitled  Wikipedia:You Are Probably Not a Lexicologist or a Lexicographer that I believe should be improved and eventually become part of wikipedia guidelines/policy. Not sure how to do this but I would appreciate if you would shepherd this essay into "goodness." I think it applies to WP:LEAD since it is about whether/how to dispute a dictionary definition in the lead graf. MPS 18:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NOTLEX]]

message: In some articles, particularly science articles, the material is so dense that it is a bit difficult for nonspecialists to approach the article. One article where this debate has resurfaced a few times is evolution. The article's introduction is becoming inaccessible. Of course, one could simplify it, but a lot of editors are afraid of losing the technical precision if they do that. It has been suggested to link to Simple Wikipedia  might be useful as a primer or starting place. Some have suggested an evolution (basic) page, possibly with a link, or a blue box with basic information in it. However, it is not clear what style a link to a simpler version should be. It would be nice to have a uniform link to basic articles as part of an MOS. For example, at the top of the article, a note, possibly in another color just below the disambiguation links to a basic version of the article or a tutorial version of the article. Comments?--Filll 20:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS for tutorials, primers, etc links in lead section  

message: I know there is a rule against links in the header.  I though there was also a convention against links in the bold title.  Did I make it up in my head? Kevlar67 04:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That recommandation is actually found at WP:GTL: "Avoid links in the bold title words". Maybe that  intro section needs to be thoroughly trimmed down and content from it transferred here.Circeus 04:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold title and links 

message: Sharkface217 suggested that you might be helpful with U.S. Navy slang. It was recently on the WP:AfD list. Fortunately, it was saved but the article needs work to prevent another prod which lead to the AfD. I am a relatively new editor to Wikipedia and have called for discussion on its talkpage. Any ideas you might have or edits you could make, would be appreciated.  Ronbo76 05:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could use your help with an article [[U.S. Navy slang]] 

message: Is there a template to suggest that a page should revise its introduction or add one in accordance with WP:LEAD.  Please respond to my talk page. TonyTheTiger 16:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead template 

message: Is it proper Wiki policy to have, following your lead section, a section called "Introduction"? Serendipodous 19:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many articles do it. I do not see what the problem is. In real professional documents, there are multiple sections that appear at the start of a document, such as a summary, executive summary, introduction, overview, abstract, etc. And sometimes one document might have 2 or 3 or more of these, for different purposes. In fact, in many circles, such as academia or government, it is standard to have at least 2 beginning sections. I see no problem with WP articles having two beginning sections, a LEAD and an Introduction.--Filll 19:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe that "introduction" is not a good header title, though: it's an encyclopedia article, not an essay or a science journal article! "Overview" is far better.Circeus 13:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding "Introduction" headings

message: Hey, I'm having soem trouble writing the lead paragraphs for Mozambican War of Independence, and I would appreciate it if someone could perhaps take a look and make any changes they might think will improve the lead? Thanks, SGGH 15:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Mozambican War of Independence]] 

message: See Wikipedia:Community noticeboard#User removing context. --NE2 16:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Context includes the country, right?

message: You tagged Electronic voice phenomenon for intro length.  Could you comment on the talk page to be more specific about why you think it is too long or violates WP intro guidelines?  We're not sure what the problem is, it seems to meet the guidelines.  Thanks.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MHM posted the above on my talk page—I had tagged the article with , because the introduction seemed to me to be longer than it needs to be.  I see this has been discussed in at least six previous sections on this talk page as well.  You are free to remove the tag if you feel it doesn't apply.   — Athænara </font>  ✉  20:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  EVP intro length 

message: Is it proper form to begin an article with something like "Jennifer Hudson is an Academy Award winning American actress and singer"? As it reads to me, opening sentences such as this imply a bias, and proper tone would be. --FuriousFreddy 12:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in first sentence? 

message: No need for Wiki to be old fashioned and reject new words in common use. The term "lede" (as in lede paragraph) began in journalism and is now widely accepted in the how-to-write and how-to edit world . See for example: Bill Walsh, The Elephants of Style: A Trunkload of Tips on the Big Issues and Gray Areas of Contemporary American English (2004) p 150:  Any sentence or lede beginning with "Pity the poor" is going to be trouble, ...'; Steve Peha and Margot Carmichael Lester, Be a Writer: Your Guide to the Writing Life (2006) p 130: "- page 130: "... It might be a lede, a sentence, a way....";    Philip Gerard, Creative Nonfiction: Researching and Crafting Stories of Real Life (1998): "- page 166: "... In this structure, the "lead" (or "lede") sentence answers the most important mystery". Barbara G., Ellis, The Copy Editing and Headline Handbook (2007): "lede, The first paragraph of a story";  Linda Jorgensen, Real-World Newsletters (1999) p 219; Bryan A. Garner, The Winning Brief: 100 Tips for Persuasive Briefing in Trial and Appellate Court (1999) p 290; And so on. Rjensen 03:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no indication how reliable your sources are. This is a better one, and it indicates the term is used in journalism only.  Can you show a reliable source actually using it outside journalism; not a source talking about it, but one actually using it? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, lede is used in real writing, such as novels, Here are some actual recent novels. 1)Squeeze Play: A Novel by Jane Leavy (2003) page 35: "... made sure to read his story before mine. I couldn't help noticing he had the poem in his lede. But my story was on ...";  2) Sin and Syntax: How to Craft Wickedly Effective Prose by Constance Hale (1999) page 159: "... Then there's her lede in a story about a lovers' spat"; 3) another novel: The Nominee by Brian McGrory (2003) page 389: "The lede of the story went on to explain how a young narcotics officer was shot ..."; 4) another novel: A Soldier's Duty: A Novel by Thomas E. Ricks (2002) page 125: "... It wouldn't make the lede in their stories, but it did provide a ..."; 5) another novel: Thief of Words by John Jaffe (2004) page 232: "... you might find in the lede of a feature story by J. R. Thelman. ..."; From other genres, nonfiction: 6) Wrestling with Behavioral Genetics: science, ethics, and public conversation by by Audrey R. Chapman, Erik Parens, Nancy Press (2006)  - Page 318: "The perhaps in that lede was bold, almost cheeky. And the second paragraph is quick with the caveats: "The results have yet to be confirmed by other ..."; 7) political writing [Washington Monthly Dec 2003]: "Roman's story on the eventual defeat of the Alternative led with the intriguing news that Senator Daschle "said he is willing to reintroduce a version of the bill that might appeal to Republicans," a move that Daschle had previously refused to take. The lede no doubt came as a surprise to Daschle because it was simply not true. ...  Simply put, the quote was fabricated and the lede was a lie."; Rjensen 04:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rjensen, I bow to your excellent research. Thank you for all the examples. Sorry to have made you dig them up. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks--i find words fascinating. Rjensen 04:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede terminology is now standard 

message: I would be happy to see the chapter about context extended. To my opinion the context of an article is previous to the article overview and limited to define the subject and its most important characteristic elements. Those elements are to be sourced separately but unified by the main subject only, without dependencies one between the other (such dependencies would be at risk of WP:OR). Thus the context of a subject would be clarified without being limited by the quality of the article itself. Only next to the context being established, the introduction could continue to expose the article overview and supply constraints about what and what not. Rokus01 20:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding "Establish context" 

message: I would like to add just a little text to the "Suggestions" section clarifying that these are suggestions, and may not be applicable to all articles.  In particular, the suggestions seem to well-suited for articles about political philosophies or religions, but poorly suited for biographical or geographic articles. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion that we modify "Suggestions" 

message: I've just read Wikipedia talk:Lead section#Introductions, and I agree that the first few sentences of a Wikipedia article can get overloaded with information. My suggestion would be to move a lot of this information to footnotes. Does this sound like a good idea and can it be added to the guideline? Carcharoth 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on introductions 

message: In view of the recent issues about the lead of article Intelligent design, I think this guideline should give some  clear criteria on how to write the lead in case of dispute, particularly on how to write the article definition in the very first sentences (where most disputes rise). This to avoid that an organized minority with an agenda can disrupt a featured article, waste time of other editors with endless and bad faith discussion, and eventually making them quit the editing for frustration.
:Possible criteria to be added: In case of dispute on the definition at the article start, the first sentence should quote a definition from the most reliable source gathered. Citation of other definitions may follow, ordered by the reliability of their sources. After this first paragraph, an overview/summary of the whole article follows.
--BMF81 13:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed definition: more details needed  

message: It appears to me that a big problem with the lead article is the inclusion of politically charged statments introduced as controversies on scores of articles, examples CNN FOX NEWS.  It would appear that some people are adament on making sure that criticisms of bias are tagged to these articles because they don't like the entity in question resulting in considerable edit wars and arguements over these articles.  This process has resulted in the FOX NEWS article denegrating into a pile of POV where references are used to back up a claim that is not held by the reference, BUT, concensus was reached to placate all parties.  What is the point of concensus in such discussion when the concensus is wrong, but no rememdy exists to fix it?  This is not an arguement of concensus, but more of a plea for restrictions on criticism within articles.  It is becoming more and more clear that many articles are flush with criticism from opposite sides when dealing with anything remotely viewed to be policitally charged.  This is a serious problem, and unless delt with WP will further lose respect within the acadmenic world as articles begin to look more and more POV because one side yells the loudest and the longest.  WP was viewed to be NPOV once, that view is dissapearing.  Arzel 14:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Controversies 

message: I'm sure that I've seen a guideline somewhere that the subject of the lead sentence should be the topic of the article, rather than the word used to refer to the topic of the article. That is,
: A mug is a kind of cup, blablabla
rather than
: The word mug means a certain type of cup, blablabla
This would be the natural place to look for such a guideline, but it doesn't seem to be here. Shouldn't it? And where is it actually? –Henning Makholm 08:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in here the last time I looked. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm open to the suggestion that it's there but that I simply persistently fail to see it, but I really cannot find it. Could you quote the key sentence from the discussion in the guideline, such that I can have my browser highlight it for me? –Henning Makholm 21:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Describe the thing, not the term 

message: It says so-and-so number of characters is so-and-so paragraphs but how do you find out the number of characters in an article? Does it include everything or just readable prose? Christopher Connor 01:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't take that too literally, Christopher. If you want to find the number of characters, you can get them via the word-count function on any word-processing program, but the best thing is to use common sense about the relationship between the text and the size of the lead. The rule of thumb about length in here is in case of disputes. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finding out number of characters