Talk:Lead paragraph

message: In the (lead paragraph)2 :) was a tutorial passage:
: The "lead" immediately grabs the attention of the reader and must be at least three sentences long. It also needs to directly relate to the body of the article.
With some sources that might be used in a section about tutorial advice regarding lead paragraphs. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tutorial text in lead 

message: Do you support moving the article to the new title "Lede paragraph" or do prefer to keep it as it is? Pass a Method talk 10:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph to Lede paragraph 

message: Do you support moving the title from "lead paragraph" to "Lede"? (i messaged all involved in the last RfC to avoid canvassing issues) Pass a Method talk 18:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead paragraph to Lede 

message: "Lede is the correct spelling for this word; lead is not", it says invisibly in the markup, very near the top. Which just isn't true, as anyone can see by comparing the spelling of the article title with that of the first sentence. Indeed, both spellings should be in the lead/lede, and bolded. Rothorpe (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Hidden text

message: Shouldn't the opening sentence be "lead or lede" rather than leads. Later in the paragraph reference is made to a difference in spelling. "Leads" is just making it plural. Thanks for any attention to this matter. Freddiem (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Lead paragraph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120219122848/http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20001128 to http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20001128
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "The usual spelling in American journalism is lede.[2]"
The cited source explains the reason for the unusual spelling, but it does not in any way indicate that it's used more in America than anywhere else, nor does it say that the spelling is "the" usual spelling; in fact, it's used only in specific usages in the journalism industry, butthe more conventional "lead" is also used, and "lede" is certainly not THE usual spelling. In ordinary use, (and commonly in American journalistic circles), the conventional spelling "lead" is used. I will revise unless some other information is presented here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Lede is to avoid confusion with the printing press type formerly made from the metal lead or the related typographical term leading Pass a Method talk 19:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Sorry, which reference is supposed to be saying that the lead of (for example) an essay is written 'lede'? I read them and they only refer to 'lede's in news articles, not any other type, but the article seems to be implying that 'lede' is commonly used with all the different types of literary work, where did you get that from?Teapeat (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

text: 'Lede' is incorrect but commonly used in journalism jargon.  There are two reasons: 1) They can't spell and 2) the 'lede' is not the same as the 'lead' paragraph.  The lead paragraph contains who, what, when, and where, and the 'lede' contains a lame joke or an ironic comment.  The reason given, to distinguish the paragraph from the type, never made sense, and especially doesn't make sense when lead type isn't used any more.  24.27.31.170 (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have my doubts lede was ever a historical replacement for 'lead paragraph.' I would think, to include this non-standard spelling, it should be easily found and referenced in an old copy of the AP Stylebook. If that can't be done, I wonder if the term should be here at all. The claim that the non-standard spelling was used to distinguish it from lead, used in typesetting, is something I can't find in any pre-1970 typesetting manual, or journalists dictionary. A quick check of Wolfram-Alpha also doesn't find any use of that spelling for that meaning in historical context. In 1940, for example, a time when printing was primarily lead based, it's not there. Considering the source of this "historical" word in this article is a single, non-authored article, what am I missing? Why is the term presented as a suitable replacement when the reference is so poor? Lexlex (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: According to [ http://grammarist.com/usage/lead-lede/ ]: "Long ago the noun lede was an alternative spelling of lead, but now lede is mainly journalism jargon for the introductory portion of a news story—or what might be called the lead portion of the news story. Strictly speaking, the lede is the first sentence or short portion of an article that gives the gist of the story and contains the most important points readers need to know." Also see [ http://howardowens.com/lede-vs-lead/ ], [ http://lisawaananen.com/noted/2014/09/12/lead-vs-lede-and-tradition-vs-substance/ ], [ https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2012/10/lede-time.html ], and [ https://thebettereditor.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/should-we-bury-this-lede/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Having actually paid attention in school, it`s difficult for me to believe it got started in any other way but with someone who couldn`t spell. 2600:1702:2340:9470:2C69:3A66:F84C:ACCC (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

text: Citing someone's opinion in a recently published document saying "lede" was a historical spelling doesn't prove the history. Actual, verifiable historical references prove the spelling "lede" was just never used: these would be press style guides and journalism text books from the time period of lead type use. This has been extensively researched and it's just not there—like, not at all. This is ridiculously over-cited within this article to prove this and yet every few months a new editor comes along trying to state it as fact and/or cite a recent reference but can't provide any historical reference. Unless someone can come up with something—anything!— from the time period in question (e.g. 1920's through 1970's) showing "lede" to be used by anyone in press/journalism industry it remains just this weird claim that keeps getting repeated with no basis in historical fact. Lexlex (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   Please provide your historical source for the spelling as a reference. Attempting to cite a current, offline dictionary as counter claim to extensively cited claims  as you've done here doesn't do anything to prove the historical accuracy of the claim. Would love it if you can find one, but we haven't been able to so far despite years of looking. A recent publication making the claim with no historical backup unfortunately doesn't prove anything. (Like, where's the actual proof of its use?) Please see extensive discussion above.Lexlex (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  OED quotes an example from 1951: "1951   Pampa (Texas) Daily News 21 June 17/2   Lead (Lede)—Opening of a news story, ordinarily summarizing the rest of it." I must say, your aversion to using the Oxford English Dictionary as a reliable source is idiosyncratic and against wikipedia policy. Hence I will revert my edits. Happy to continue the discussion on here. Zekelayla (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wanting see the actual cite of its use and not a third party/proxy claim really isn't much of an ask—especially when it would be straightforward to cite (even the OED cites, as you've shown), but no one could see it. But the thing is—they did— and you just gave details so you're almost there. With what you gave me above, I was able to find this link which totally satisfies proof of its use historically. Congratulations! Now, would you like to enter the historical cite of its use or should I? Big moment! Lexlex (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm all for adding that reference if you want to do the honors. However, the OED (or other equivalent lexicographer) judgement is important here, and should stay in. This is in line with wikipedia's policies in favor of secondary sources. Of course my oblique reference to 1951 would be superseded by a direct citation like you're proposing. Zekelayla (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Add OED or whatever you wish, my earlier RV was primarily because your OED cite was/is malformed and not in the correct place(s). Please see WP:Cite for help and consider using one of these automated tools that can do it for you (e.g. with just an ISBN or link). I will adjust them later if you don't get to it.Lexlex (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  yeah I struggled to figure out how to generate a URL for an article behind the paywall. have done so now. Zekelayla (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It`s spelled lead..someboby who literally wasn`t paying attention in the 4th grade misspelled it and for some strange unknown reason...for the life of me in our educated enlightened society of literate English speaking readers and writers..I can`t imagine why..it stuck..or they left it in as a joke..I`m guessing the latter Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede