Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Describing notable controversies

Regarding the suggestion to briefly describe notable controversies; there seems to be a spectrum of interpretations on controversial topics; The Passion of the Christ doesn't note the controversy, The O'Reilly Factor notes that it is controversial, but not what the controversy is, and there is currently a dispute over what should be included in Sicko, which is debating if specific points should be included in the lead & how to do so. This is not a RFC for content disputes on those pages but rather a request for consensus on the guideline since it is apparently still open to interpretation or dispute, and I've selected those so that we could have a concrete discussion. Is the presence of multiple/many smaller controversies (such that each alone would be insufficient to warrant inclusion in the lead) around a topic sufficient to warrant inclusion? e.g. multiple commentators each have their own criticisms of Sicko, but it seems like they each make different points. If so, how should the general cloud of controversy be described? Also we might consider the vagueness of notability. Here's a previous discussion on controversies in the lead: Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section/archive2#Notable_controversies Ripe 20:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I added "'Notable controversies' are prolonged public disputes between parties engaged with each other, the details of which are reported on by several notable 3rd party sources. Critical reviews, critiques, and criticisms that do not result in both iterated responses between principal parties and 3rd party news coverage of the dispute do not qualify as notable controversies sufficient for inclusion in the lead." to the relative emphasis section. Comments? Ripe 23:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can think of numerous notable controversies that are not included in your definition of notable controversy, including the three cases you cite, whose articles, IMO, all flunk the current version of WP:LEAD. Indeed, it's hard to imagine what would be a "notable controversy" under your proposed restrictive definition, other than perhaps the Alger Hiss trial. THF 18:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that if, within a particular topic area, there are no prominent resources that think that a particular controversy between parties is sufficiently noteworthy to include a description of it anywhere in any 3rd party article on the topic, then the controversy is probably not sufficiently noteworthy to be described in the lead of Wikipedia's 3rd party article on the topic. Also I think a distinction needs to be drawn between notably controversial topics and notable controversies. Ripe 20:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a particularly badly-written part of the guideline. If you look at the archives, where the original wording is reproduced, I fancy you will see that it might help solve the problem. When I next have the time to engage in long discussions with irritable editors, I will return the wording to the stable, clear version. Hornplease 23:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On your specific point about notability, it seems clear that unless most representative reviews of the article's subject mention a controversy, it is not notable enough for the lead. Hornplease 23:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is bolding necessary?

The guideline says that links should not be bolded. Is the solution to not bold anything, like on Interstate 15 in Arizona? --NE2 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It actually says to avoid links, it doesn't say it should not be done. Quite a big difference. --Holderca1 03:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the difference? [1] --NE2 03:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Holderca1 means that the guideline says that the title should be bolded and not linked. I think the problem is that a bolded title of two words with one linked looks somewhat unbalanced, with too much emphasis on the linked word. If both words are linked there would be less of a problem (so perhaps the rule could be relaxed). Also, in some cases splitting up the title to fit better in the sentence while avoiding duplication seems acceptable. See [2].--Patrick 10:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The difference is, if it is something that should not be done, it shouldn't be done under any circumstances. If is something that should be avoided, then you should do anything to not do it, but there are circumstances where it is avoidable, and you have to. For example, you should avoid hitting another car while driving, but if you are left with the options of either hitting the car or hitting a pedestrian, you would opt for hitting the car. --Holderca1 21:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I just found Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Article titles:

If the topic of an article has no name, and the title is simply descriptive—like Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface:

I'm going to edit this guideline to clarify that. --NE2 10:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Nitpicky question about bold initialisms

I have a detailed question regarding the bold formatting of articles that are referred to their name and initialism, for example, which is more correct/recommended:

1. Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) is a ...
2. Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) is a ...
3. Electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) is a ...

note that the difference is that the parenthesis is included in the bold formatting in the second example, while the third does not format the common (but not exclusive) initialism. +mt 02:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would go with 1 if the initialism redirects to the page: National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Arguably, it should be three if it does not redirect but I suspect editors usually bold in that case as well. In neither case would I bold the bracket. Marskell 07:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, but typographical conventions (at least as I was taught back at my university's graphic design department) dictate that 2 is preferred. Punctuation appears in the same style and weight as the adjacent text so as not to distract the reader. The reason is best illustrated with the oblique or italic slant causing a collision: "all" looks worse than "all" because at least on my screen, the L overlaps with the quotation mark. For bold weight, it just looks better. ←Ben^B4 08:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll agree with the typographical conventions of #2. Furthermore it is simpler to type, and is 6 wiki characters less than #1. I'll consider adding it to the front page in a few days with an example, unless there is any reasonable objection (i.e., formatting rational provided by BenB4, or this is not relevant enough to be a guideline). +mt 01:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations in the Lead

I realize this has been brought up before, but there seems to be two problems with this. The first is that these claims DO have a citation, just not immediately after their statement. Therefore, they are not missing a citation. If you make a claim and cite it. Do you have to cite it if you use that claim 2 sentences later? the next paragraph? the next section? If not, then why is it required in the lede. The second reason is aesthetics. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, to an extent. As such, it would likely need a lot of citations that would clutter up the lead. Imagine an article with over 200 citations included in the lead. As such, I think "needs a citation" should be clarified in WP:V. Again, I am not saying that these do not need references, merely that their placement in the lead would be...well...misplaced. Furthermore, I know few encyclopedias that actually cite everything in their text with footnotes of any kind, so the argument other "encyclopedias do it" seems to be a red herring. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am in favor of referencing in the lead. I believe that the lead should give the best possible impression of the article, and this includes showing the reader that the article is well referenced. References in the lead also make things easier for the reader. If they see a fact in the lead that strikes them as odd, they should be able to check that fact right away, instead of having to sort through the article. Johntex\^talk 17:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• The lede is also a good place to cite general references that should be consulted for general claims in the rest of the article; see the scientific citation guideline for more on that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am rather against providing citations in the lead, except perhaps in exceptional circumstances. The "best impression" is given by dispensing with that clutter in my opinion. The lead is supposed to be a summary of what's said later in the article, so that's where the citation ought to be, later in the article. But above all I think that there ought to be a clear and consistent guideline, instead of some reviewers stubbornly insisting on citations in the lead and others not. So far as I understand it, the GA/FA criteria only demand verifiability; they don't specify where that verification needs to be provided. And I take a very dim of one GA reviewer in particular who has unilaterally begun demanding that citations be placed in the lead. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• "If they [the readers] see a fact in the lead that strikes them as odd, they should be able to check that fact right away, instead of having to sort through the article." Perhaps, but some facts are not so easily referenced; to justify the population of a reasonably sized urban area in a major conurbation would typically take one reference for each of its wards; the demographics another set of references and so on. The lead would become a forest of references, and nobody would be able to see the trees. --Malleus Fatuarum 02:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• • If something is in the lead that is 'odd' for the majority of readers, I would hope that it would have its own subsection; a glance at the table of contents would thus direct the user there. Citations in the lead are clearly, therefore, unnecessary. When was this change introduced, anyway? Hornplease 15:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There should be nothing in the lead that is not contained in some form in the main body. This includes citations. From a stylistic point of view, a lead without citations is much better, and they are redundant as they should be in the body. --Merbabu 09:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, there is no change with the section. There's never been a lead exception written into P&Gs despite rumours to the contrary. The section simply states what's always been true—that sometimes leads need citations. Malleus, inadvertantly, has a good example: of course, you have to cite population statistics in a lead to a city article. If you don't, there'll be endless dithering over whether they're correct. You have to cite quotations—they have to be cited everywhere. And you absolutely have to cite negative BLP information. (That certainly trumps aesthetics.)

That leaves "statements likely to be challenged." Just be sensible about it; look for statements that may make people stop short, but don't go overboard with citations. Earlier I'd used Cougar, as an example. In the end, we cited two things: "the greatest range of any wild terrestrial mammal in the Western Hemisphere" and "Attacks on humans remain rare, despite a recent increase in frequency." Both, I thought, might make people come knocking on the talk page. I did not cite that it mainly feeds on ungulates or that it's the second heaviest cat in the New World. In the body, it's feeding behaviour is cited, so the lead is treated slightly differently. But the lead is generalized, as leads ought to be, so it's fine. Marskell 13:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually my example wasn't "inadvertent", and was intended to make exactly the opposite point, against putting citations in the lead. A town or city article will have a demographics section where the population figures will be referenced. Repeating the (potentially many) citations required to justify the population – it often has to be calculated from the ward level – just adds unnecessary clutter for no benefit. Any "dithering" about the figure can be quickly and easily resolved by a glance at the appropriate section. I am in complete agreement with Merbabu; I think the aesthetics do take precedence in the lead. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have gone through that exact problem on Toronto (which has far too many citations in other respects, at the moment); you need them, messy as it is too wade through them to edit. Federal gov't says X, you ref it to the federal gov't. Provincial gov't says Y, you ref it to the provincial gov't. Next person along has nothing to complain about. And note, updates to Demographics may take their cue from the lead and not the other way around.

And to be clear, aesthetics most certainly do not take precedence over WP:BLP. That's just a plain fact. And I don't see that aesthetics take precedence over quotations or anything else on WP:V, which leads to the main point: verifiability is the policy. This total embargo on citations in leads that people seem to be advocating can only be worked out through V. Marskell 14:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• Let me be clear. I am all in favour of verifiability but so far as the lead specifically is concerned I remain of the opinion that aesthetics should take precedence. As I understand it, there is no requirement for a claim to be sourced every time it is made, or even to be sourced the first time it is made. The requirement is simply that it is adequately sourced. --Malleus Fatuarum 15:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

May I point out that that Toronto article does not look right at all, and supports that point that citations should be in the main article itself as opposed to the lead. That's why it's a lead; it's a summary of what the article contains. (This is also why when I'm expanding articles I do the lead last). Wizardman 15:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Toronto is terribly ugly. I'm speaking about the numbers only—those needed sourcing because there was so much wrangling (different figures from different levels of government etc.). But a question: are either of you suggesting that contentious BLP info and quotations should not be sourced in a lead? Is that actually what's being argued here? Marskell 16:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure no one's suggested that BLP concerns and quotes should not be sourced. Wizardman 16:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have certainly made no suggestion about the provision of sources for BLP concerns and quotes. What I said was: "I am rather against providing citations in the lead, except perhaps in exceptional circumstances". And as has already been said, that Toronto article is a good example of why it ought to be kept to a minimum. --Malleus Fatuarum 16:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

General comments: I agree that there is no specific exceptions for lead when it comes to controversial statements and quotes. However, in most cases, the need for citation may be averted if the lead had been written well to begin with. It is exceedingly rare that a quote is necessary for a lead! The few instances where a citation then becomes absolutely necessary are not something worth edit warring/arguing/disputing over here or anywhere else. It just gives those interesting in maintaining WP:LAME new material. Circeus 16:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In fact, I had argued as much to Slim two months ago (although certain types of articles, such as bios, may be more given to quotations). And if "no one's suggested that BLP concerns and quotes should not be sourced" then I don't see that we are so far apart here or what the problem with the section is. It says: follow V, follow BLP, but you're probably not going to need that many citations because leads are generalized. Straightforward enough. Marskell 16:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's as simple as that. Take your example of the population of a city again. That's a specific statement, not a generalised one. The fact that Toronto is located on the northwestern shore of Lake Ontario is a specific statement, not a generalised one ... and so on. You seem to be suggesting that one specific statement (population) needs a citation in tne lead, but another specific statement (location) doesn't? --Malleus Fatuarum 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

First, if Toronto bothers you, see New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, whose initial population stats all take citations.

The fact that Toronto is located on the northwestern shore of Lake Ontario is not likely to be challenged and if it were challenged, it would be trivial and ignorable. That's our critical definition. V does not say "source every specific statement". Let's look at Chicago, which sources a second statement after population: "Since the Chicago World's Fair of 1893, it has been regarded as one of the ten most influential cities in the world." Someone might challenge that. What do you mean by "most influential"? and so on. It's a statement that ought to be sourced. Marskell 16:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• The issue isn't about sourcing statements "likely to be challenged"; I can't see that anyone has questioned the clear need for that. It's about repeating in the lead citations that are given later in the relevant part of the article. And let's not forget as well that for articles like Toronto the population is already given in the infobox anyway, with citations there as well. How many times does a claim need to be sourced in one article? --Malleus Fatuarum 17:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn't about sourcing statements 'likely to be challenged'—in your second last post, it was. You brought up the Lake Ontario example and I answered it. Let's try to be consistent, if we're going to keep pinging away. And if you "can't see that anyone has questioned the clear need for" sourcing statements likely to be challenged, then I have no idea what we're talking about—you've basically agreed that everything in the supposedly disputed section is kosher.

How many times does a claim need to be sourced in one article? Generally, only once. If it's liable to startle people ("...the greatest range of any wild terrestrial mammal in the Western Hemisphere"), probably twice. If it's mentioned in an infobox, it shouldn't need to be sourced in the lead unless the mention is more elaborate in the latter. (I wouldn't see a need to repeat any claim more than twice.) If it's negative BLP information, it should be sourced at every iteration. I don't know how much more you want. We can't legislate for every eventuality. Marskell 18:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be talking about something entirely different to what I'm talking about; that may well be my fault for not being clear enough. I have never, and do not now, challenge the need for sourcing statements "likely to be challenged". So far as I'm concerned this discussion is simply about the appropriate place(s) to provide those sources. You yourself have said that a claim needs (generally) to be sourced only once. I agree. Where you and I seem to disagree is where that source should appear. I assert that it should be in the relevant section in the article, leaving the lead clear of aesthetically displeasing clutter. You appear to be saying that it ought to be in the lead, thereby implying that (generally) a source doesn't need to be provided in the relevant section of the article. Forgive me if I've misrepresented what you're saying, but that position seems bizarrely inconsistent to me. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we're not talking about something entirely different. You're jumping from point to point to be disputatious about things we're not really disagreeing on. Generally, a given piece of info only needs to be sourced once, at its most specific iteration. And generally, that occurs in the body; thus the body has more sources, pound-for-pound, than the lead. There may be cases where the most specific description occurs in the lead and not the body, but I can't think of many beyond titles and scientific designations etc., which this guideline already mentions. That is a descriptive fact, not a prescriptive rule, about article leads and bodies. That is, we don't have a wholesale barrier to citations in the lead—we just admit that leads often won't need them, but that leads are not exempt from core policy.

So, ya. If you agree that quotations, contentious BLP information, and information "likely to be challenged" requires citation, then I fail to see the problem with the section. Marskell 22:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• I have been making one point, not "jumping from point to point to be disputatious", a charge that I frankly resent. I was supporting the original point made by User:BQZip01 about citations in the lead. It was not not me that kept dragging up red herrings about "BLP" and "V"; that would be you. My belief is that you have misunderstood the proposal and misrepresented my position. I've expressed my view and I have no more to say on the matter. --Malleus Fatuarum 23:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. You've truly lost me—I don't see your one point. Marskell 00:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations in the Lead 2 (arbitrary break)

Excuse me for asking the obvious, but if the Lead is an overview of the article, and the statements in the Lead specifically refer to information in the the article - cited information as well - what is the point of introducing the citation there? It's going to be in the article, and merely clutters up the Lead. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"You've truly lost me—I don't see your one point. Marskell"

Arcayne has just reiterated my one point, a point that seems just as blindingly obvious to Arcayne as it does to me. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted additions by Arcayne which do not seem to relflect any consensus here. In particular Arcayne's wording seems to imply that one should strive to omit information from the lead if it is likely to need a citation, even if the information otherwise belongs in an encyclopedic introduction to the topic. I do not see anybody in this discussion arguing such an extreme view. On the contrary, it appears to me that everybody agrees the selection of what to say in the lead should be based on giving a good concise overview, etc., of the topic. What the disagreement is about is whether, after this selection has been made, contestable statements in the lead should be decorated with duplicates of references that are also given later in the article. That is completely differerent from "make every effort to omit things from the lead that somebody might want cited". –Henning Makholm 18:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In the above conversation it was shown that, in the lead, no one seriously contests the citation of:

• Quotations
• Contentious BLP info
• Statements likely to be challenged

With that revealed, Malleus disputed on the basis of a) not all "specific statements" need sourcing and then b) "how many times does a claim need to be sourced?". Two points, not one—and both red herrings. In short, dispute without substance remained. Marskell 20:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• You continue to misrepresent my position. Which is that I am against the use of citations in the lead, except in exceptional circumstances. I have never said I believe that not all "specific statements" need sourcing; what I have said is that not all "specfic statements" need sourcing every time they appear. What you see as "points" are simply questions, the answers to which may help in understanding the inconsistency of insisting on citations in the lead. --Malleus Fatuarum 22:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

And I would posit that my own post and edit doesn't seriously contest the above example, either. Perhaps User:Makholm misunderstood the nature of my clarification, reverted it accidentally, and subsequently misrepresented my intentions (I forgive you for that, by the way - lol). As someone who doesn't 'have a horse' in this particular competition, I have always considered the Lead statement to be an overview of the article, a summary, and that there is nothing in the Lead which is not supported by the article. Therefore, it seems 'bass-akwards' and unencyclopedic to (at least) me that one would need to put citations in the Lead since - by definition - they are provided in the article alongside everything else the Lead is a summary of. No one is saying omit information in the Lead. I think what I am suggesting that a bit of finesse can allude to claims that have citation in the body of the article, and that putting citations in the Lead implies a defensive approach to building a solid article rather than an encyclopedic one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted again. On a guideline-tending-to-polify page the bold-revert-discuss cycle does not apply, not to matters of controversy at least. You're supposed to seek consensus for a change first, and afterwards edit the guideline to implement it. What you wrote was:

While there is not a citation exception specific to leads, every effort should be made to place citations in the body of the article, and not in the Lead summary.

I do not see any consensus to exhort editors to make "every effort" to keep citations out of the lead. On the contrary, there are a significant number of editors who want citations in the lead. (I further have the impression that most editors who don't want citations in the lead are generally okay with others placing them there; they just don't want to be told that they are bad people for omitting redundant references in the lead they write themselves). You further write

Contentious material about living persons must be cited at every iteration, regardless of the level of generality; therefore, such material should be left to the body of the article.

I do not see any consensus for this change either. Nobody (except you) seems to think that it is a reason to leave material out of the lead that it needs citation. On the contrary, if somebody is notable chiefly because of contentious allegations made against them, it makes no sense to have a lead section that is silent about why this person is notable at all. As far as I can see, there is a strong consensus that in such a case the right thing to do is to summarize the controversy in the lead and put a citation in the lead. I cannot read your text otherwise than a requirement that avoiding citations in the lead takes precedence over making the lead meaningfully complete. –Henning Makholm 21:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I see that I have been reverted again. Not wishing to come too close to 3RR, I hope that other good people will see the sense of seeking consensus first, and revert to the old and better wording, while Arcayne explains what he meant if it was not what he seems to say. –Henning Makholm 21:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, this particular issue is a matter of significant debate and your changes (while I agree with your assertions), are inappropriate here. Guidelines are a representation of consensus by numerous editors. As such BE BOLD doesn't apply since changes, by definition, are against consensus. If you will read the previous posts, you will note the issue of discussion is still under debate, so please continue discussion, but under the guidelines of dispute resolution, we should try the talk page first. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; my edit was not an atempt to be disruptive or to Be Bold, instead I sought to follow the consensus flow chart and introducing a new edit with which to seek a new consensus. I will not reintroduce it, confining my opinion here for the time being. Again, no offense or bum's-rush was intended. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Question / comment: Is it true that the lead is supposed to be mostly a summary or restatement of the body of the article, without its own independent material? If so, anything needing citation in the lead is already cited in the article. The only exceptions I see are contentious material about BLP (if permitted in the lead) and material that isn't in the body (such as a statement of notability for a stub article, a quotaqtion, etc). If a citation is mentioned in the article, it need not be repeated in the lead. Is it okay to put it in the lead? I don't see the harm, as long as the citation is repeated when the material appears again in the body. The reason to make sure all citations are in the body is that not everybody reads the lead or should have to. If you know it's the right article and you want to read the whole thing, or read just one section, you shouldn't have to read the lead to see if you missed anything. A corollary would be that if you find something in the lead that needs a citation, you should ask yourself whether that's material that should be in the body instead of or in addition to the lead. Does that make sense?Wikidemo 03:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason for requesting citations on the lead is that (a) not many readers go beyond the first screenfull of material, and (b) WP:V asks us to provide sources to all material in articles when challenged. If a lead is not challenged, it may remain without inline citations, but if challenged, the material will need to be accompanied with such. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense - if people challenge the lead, then point them to the article body that (of course) has the information with reliable references and cannot be challenged. If people don't read beyond the lead, then that is up to them - the lead doesn't have to provide every detail. This has worked perfectly well for months unchallenged on Indonesia and more recently John Howard where every fact in the lead is based on the article and its reliable referencing. Thus no problem from a verification point of view with no lead cites - but they look awful and detract from smooth readability, particularly in an otherwise feature standard article (granted, in lesser quality articles other problems will be more glaring). --Merbabu 03:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Merbabu.

If people don't go past the first screen, then they are not reading the whole article. If you read the first paragraph of a newspaper article and then complain it didn't cover enough, then that is your fault, not the author's. Again, the problem is not "providing a source" but where that source should be provided.

Alternative. What about wikilinking within that document as to where the lead comes from. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's my impression from the comments on this topic that there are some editors who see citations in the lead as necessary for them (the editors) to be able to check the verifiability of the information given. But the purpose of the lead is surely to give an overview of the article -- I wouldn't even say a summary, that's a separate discussion -- to the general reader, in an as aesthetically pleasing and engaging a way as possible. Which argues against distracting little blue numbers everywhere, duplicating what is verified in the body of the article. --Malleus Fatuarum 04:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I rather disagree with Jossi here (which is odd, as Jossi is like, 8 kinds of smart), in that we need to allow citations in the Lead in the off-chance that someone may ask for them there. Its called the Lead because it leads the person into the article. Any editor worth their barnstar can write a Lead in such a way so as to not have to add citable information. Please note that this is not code for 'omit information'. If anything, it is code for generalizing the info in such a way that the reader is enticed to read on and see the claims made at the beginning of the article. If the Lead makes statements not included in the text of the article, it shouldn't be cited - it should be removed, since the Lead only refers to info within the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree immensely with Arcayne ("Any editor worth their barnstar can write a Lead in such a way so as to not have to add citable information."): Technical terms in the intro and quotes (example: Aggie Bonfire) may need them, so they shouldn't be banned...especially considering how many have them, but a requirement to have them is a bit much, IMHO. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Might I ask you to point where I stated that they should be "banned"? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You never said "banned", but you said that anyone should be able to write a lead without adding citable info...my point is that statement isn't true. That's all. If I misunderstood, well, my bad. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the two are pretty different viewpoints on dealing with citable information. I am sayng that a summary.overview/what-have-you can be written without speaking specifically to information which is cited later in the article. It's a matter of putting together a good lead to begin with instead of trying to cram everything into the introduction to the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite the apparent "complete disagreement" here, I'm still not seeing it. No one has specifically challenged citations for: quotations; contentious BLP info; statements likely to be challenged. That's all the section says. Marskell 10:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I am very sorry that you were somehow left out of the loop, Marskell, allow me to bringyou up to speed on the conversation thus far: we were discussing whether the policy should be adapted to reflect the idea that Lead statements shouldn't include citations, as the Lead is an overview of the article, and the article contains those citations. Some people disagree with that, and currently, people are discussing the matter. Discussion is ongoing.

Oh, and someone added a really tasty recipe for French Onion dip, but I removed it as being off-point. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. Are you suggesting that any of quotations, contentious BLP info, and statements likely to be challenged should not be sourced? Marskell 10:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I am suggesting that a well-written Lead statement leaves these citations where they belong - in the actual body of the article. It has been oft-repeated here that the Lead is an overview of the article, a sort of teaser, explaining what is coming up in the actual article. The citations in the article can be contested. If a statement or section is removed fromt he article, the new arrangement might affect the Lead. You don't put citations in the Lead because then when the cited statements re-occur, it's redundant. We tend to remove redundant info. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, your no is a little confusing. Are you suggesting that any of quotations, contentious BLP info, and statements likely to be challenged should not be sourced in the lead? Marskell 11:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that statements likely to be challenged should be referenced everywhere they appear? --Malleus Fatuarum 16:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We really are going in circles, so I'll quote myself from above. How many times does a claim need to be sourced?: "Generally, only once. If it's liable to startle people, probably twice...I wouldn't see a need to repeat any claim more than twice. If it's negative BLP information, it should be sourced at every iteration." I have given you examples of two things sourced in the leads of Cougar and Chicago. See, for instance, Titan (moon): it's discovery date and three potentially startling claims are sourced. Marskell 17:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

All three examples could be written without citation, but that isn't the point. It is noteworthy that at least two of them were FA articles, wherein the next part of the argument is 'well, if FA articles have it, then there's no reason to change it,' right? That was the policy at the time they were written. As well, a lot fo FA articles have non-free images with questionable fair-use imagery. Did we alter these articles to reflect the new fair-use policy? We sure did. Altering the citation usage in the Lead would be no different.

Clearly, a pattern is emerging; the same people who have opposed removing citations from the lead (or even adding the suggestion that the Lead should be writen so as to avoid adding contentious information in need of citation) throughout the archives are still saying the same things. The people who are suggesting that some alteration to this policy is needed are, for the most part, coming to it for the first time from a multitude of disciplines, and who know how both editing and writing work. That this many disparate folk come here seeking the same thing seems to suggest that there is some basis and logic for this view. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is you that keeps going round in circles. Nobody has ever suggested that information likely to be challenged doesn't need to be referenced, and it has been largely conceded that in exceptional circumstances, like your favourite BLP example, it may be necessary to provide citations in the lead. You keep trying to avoid answering the basic question, which is that if, as you say, information needs generally to be sourced only once, then why does something referenced later in the body of the article need to be referenced again in the lead? And now you've bowled another googley by suggesting that if the information is "startling" then it ought to be referenced twice. Can we please try to stick to the general point about citations in the lead, without getting distracted by BLP or "startling" information? The present guidelines are an invitation to reviewers to insist on citations for everything mentioned in the lead, as I have seen happen myself, because there is no workable definition of "information likely to be challenged", much less "startling". The result is an ugly looking lead that benefits nobody. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but this: then why does something referenced later in the body of the article need to be referenced again in the lead? , is ass backwards. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I think he meant that material that is already cited in the article can be referred to in a general way in the Lead so that citation is unnecessary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Touche. I don't think you're meaning badly at all, Malleus, but you're not making sense. "..invitation to reviewers to insist on citations for everything mentioned in the lead." Who has said that? How is the section in question advocating that? How are you reading that in my comments? I mean, really. Marskell 21:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations in the lead 2.5, arbitrary mini-break

I'm separating this because it's a slightly different issue. jossi mentioned those who read the lead section but not the article and their need for sourcing. What about people who read the article through-and-through, or just a specific section? Should they have all the citations available to them down in the detailed article whether or not they're in the lead section? It seems they shouldn't have to hunt through the lead hoping to find the information summarized and sourced up there. That would suggest that whether or not cited in the lead, all sources should be cited int he body of the article. Does that make any sense? If so, I see many articles (including featured articles) that don't do this. Wikidemo 08:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we are looking at this wrong. People read the Lead to get an idea of what the article is going to be about. If the Lead section - a summary of the article - speaks of a subject, then scrolling down (or clicking on the desired TOC section) will take the reader to where the specific information is, and it is therein where the citations should be. And really, it should only be there.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It is quite easy, really. If you add a claim anywhere in an article , and that claim is challenged, you need to add a source. It does not matter if the claim is made on the lead or in a footnote. As far as WP:V goes, that is the case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's only "quite easy" if you misunderstand what's being discussed. It has never been in dispute that a challenged claim needs to be sourced. What is being discussed is what ought to be the usual situation, where a claim made in the lead -- in its role as a summary of what's said later in the article -- is already supported by a reference in the body of the article. Why should that citation need to be repeated again in the lead? --Malleus Fatuarum 18:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the lead is just a summary of things mentioned and cited in the article. No need to cram it with footnotes, WP:V is certainly not a reason to source things twice. --Victor12 22:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, i understand that you are looking at the long view here, interpreting the matter through verifiability, which is a good way to look at this. Try to understand that most of us are not advocating shirking the responsibility of citing. Anyone who suggests otherwise is either lying or selling snake oil. I am suggesting that so long as the Lead is a good summary of the article (and of course, we all know that some Leads break the Suckola Scale in weight of poor writing), it will give a nod to the cited information contained below it. And since most articles have a TOC, the info on the topic isn't going to be hard to find at all. The Lead is like the Introduction to the article. You prefeace the material by telling what the article is going to be about and then you present in-depth info on the topic, covering what you said was going to be covered. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the current requirement to cite things that are challenged or likely to be challenged. I don't normally cite the lead, but in a recent article of mine, Long hair, I decided to cite just about everything. This was mainly because everybody was taking issue with the statements it made, despite the fact that they were cited later on. I don't really think any drastic change in policy is needed. The obvious thing is that the statements made in the lead need to be cited somewhere in the article, and the lead should be cited if it is controversial. Wrad 22:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, you said earlier that in the Cougar article, citations weren't needed in the lead for the facts that it mainly feeds on ungulates and that it's the second heaviest cat in the New World. If the exact same statements were made in the body of the article, would they require citations there? Epbr123 22:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• $0.02 I am a fierce advocate of inline citations and have added them to a few lead paragraphs on things that I felt were going to be "surprising" to the reader and possibly challenged. However I tried to avoid redundancy by using a second correlating source that is different from the one used in the body but both supporting the same fact. My reasoning is that it will expose the reader to another good source without being...well...redundant. I do believe this debate does come down to "What is the purpose of the lead?" In my opinion it should serve as a summary of the article and therefore there should be nothing in the lead that is not also presented, fully cited, in the main body of the article. WP:V is fully applied if all the relevant information is cited in the body of the article. Therefore the question of cites in the lead becomes one of redundancy and practicality. I do not think this guideline should makes cites in the lead a requirement but still leave in the encouragement to do if the editor feels there is some added benefit to the reader. Citing for the sake of citing is just instruction creep. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To be clear about one thing: there is no requirement. People keep using that word, but the section doesn't. There can't be a requirement as this is just a guideline. And this is what's so frustrating. All this sound and fury, over what? Agne has "added them to a few lead paragraphs on things that [she] felt were going to be 'surprising' to the reader and possibly challenged." That's it. Just use common sense. Don't be redundant but do try to help the reader if you can guess they are going to want a source for a claim. Someone did ask about the "largest range of any terrestrial mammal" on Cougar. ("What about rats?") So it's sourced. As for Ebpr's Q, its feeding habits are extensively gone over later and sourced; I don't think second largest in the New World is specifically sourced anywhere (incidentally so, as the sources in general mention it). That's editorial discretion. We all have to apply it as no guideline can legislate for every situation. Marskell 07:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that the lead has a lower requirement for citations than the body of the article? Epbr123 09:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, I don't think that is what he is saying at all. There is no way for the lead to have a lower citation requirement because everything in the lead should have already been cited in the body of the article per WP:V. I think the "common sense" element is in regard to the need for redundancy for something to be cited again in the lead.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 09:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So he agrees it's redundant to repeat some of the citations which are already in the body of the article? Epbr123 09:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I can't speak for him but there is a difference between saying there is a "lower citation requirement" and saying that we should avoid redundancy. While I would interpret Marskell comments to mean the later, I don't see how you could make the leap to the former and say that a "citation requirement level" is even being discussed.Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer an answer from Marskell. You seem to be misunderstanding me, possibly deliberately. Epbr123 10:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine but do extend a bit more good faith. We are working in a text based medium and misunderstanding (and disagreements) can happen but it is a bit cynical to think that they are deliberate. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 10:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

On side but closely related issue i trust everyone understands that there should be nothing in a lead that is not in the main article so please don't add anything to the lead that is not in the article (including cites). Fixing that is the first step.

Then the issue is whether to repeat the cites in the lead - which is of course a is verifiability redundant and stylistically/readability poor - most particularly with an otherwise good or feature quality article. In a poorer quality article, the issue of stylistically poor and verifiability redundant cites in leads get over shadowed by more fundamental issues. --Merbabu 08:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the "if it's justified later, don't cite it in the lead" camp. I had a recent discussion with someone about the following sentence in a lead section. "Although the music of Die Feen shows the influences of Weber and other composers of the time, commentators have recognised embryonic features of the mature Wagnerian opera." They said it need immediate citing because it expressed other people's opinions. As far as I'm concerned, there is discussion lower down with proper citations of these commentators indicating who says which features of the mature operas are anticipated how; picking a random author to evidence the claim in the lead is unnecessary and stylistically poor. Picking lots is ugly.--Peter cohen 09:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Marskell says it best here, but I'll throw in a few comments as well. I once (a year or so ago) argued for not having citations for things in the lead section, but soon realised I was wrong. It is true that a well-written lead section will be general enough to only require a few citations for a few specific points, and/or a citation to a general source on the article, but trying to reduce references in the lead on aesthetic grounds is wrong. The correct approach is to fully reference and check the structure of the article, and only then to polish up the decorative (but still important) bits: the lead section, pictures, infoboxes. Anything needing referencing in those should still be referenced. You cannot expect the reader to hunt through the rest of the article to find the corresponding section and its supporting references, if only because a later editor may edit the material or change the lead section. Having said that, a lead section should not need referencing to the same level of detail as the main part of an article. It is all part and parcel of the skill of writing an article or lead section, and ultimately has to be learnt. It can't be taught by rote or by following a set of guidelines. Carcharoth 10:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding why a lead requires less citations if it's written in a more general style rather than going into details. Marskell gave the example that the fact that Cougars mainly eat ungulates doesn't need a citation in the lead as the body of the article discusses its eating habits in detail. Does this mean, for example, city population figures don't require citations in the lead if the body of the article gives fine details about the population figures, such as how the figures were derived, the male to female ratio etc.? Epbr123 10:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It depends. You can't really generalise. Sorry if that's not very helpful! Carcharoth 11:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, can you give me your reasoning for saying "a well-written lead section will be general enough to only require a few citations"? Epbr123 11:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The ungulates point did not need citation in the lead because it was unlikely to be challenged ("wait, they eat frogs, not deer!"). As we really are just picking points on the same circle, I'm going to borrow my own words again from a User talk post:

"Should we strive to have or not have lead citations? We're not striving for either. We create a full lead that introduces and briefly summarizes the main points, preparing the reader for the body; we do that while following policy. If in doing so it seems no citations are necessary, fine. If, as with Intelligent Design, editors feel that they need to cite every sentence, that's fine too. The amount of inline citations—zero, two, twenty—is not an end-in-itself. It's an outcome of writing a good lead. There's no one size fits all. Certainly some leads have little or none; others have quite a lot. Both may be appropriate depending on the subject matter. Do remember the section states: Because leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, lead information on non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source. There is a caveat in place."

We're not deriving any novel rule; we're not talking about a minimum or maximum requirement. All the section says is: follow policy. Marskell 11:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but can you just confirm that if the body of the cougar article stated "cougars mainly eat ungulates", without there being any other details on its eating habits in the article, that statement wouldn't require a citation in the body of the article? Epbr123 11:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Marskell said it much better than I could. Carcharoth 11:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem IMHO is that the current wording will encourage reviewers at WP:GAC and WP:FAC to demand citations in the lead in all or most cases. There's no mention of summary style or of citations being repeated on the main body. I also think the cougar article is a bad example for this discussion. The statement about "the greatest range of any wild terrestrial mammal in the Western Hemisphere" is sourced is cited in the lead because it is not mentioned anywhere in the main article. Leads should only summarize info mentioned in the article, thus they don't need citations. They'd only need those if adding new info as done in the cougar article. --Victor12 12:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You just alerted me to an error, actually. The first sentence of distribution states: "The Cougar has the largest range of any wild cat in the Americas, and spans 110 degrees of latitude, from northern Yukon in Canada to the southern Andes." Someone had changed it to "...in the world."

I am tired. I am weary. My last shall serve as best for now. If we're seriously back to "leads should only summarize info mentioned in the article, thus they don't need citations" then we're back to A after having already gone through to Z. Marskell 12:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that citations should exist in the lead. A lead should simply be a reliable and complete summary of the article and should not include information which the article does not have. It makes much more sense for the lead to exist as a summary opposed to some "introduction" because often people never actually read the entire article and only read the lead. Let's take an article that is fairly large and has a lead with 3 paragraphs. The first paragraph should include the basics of the article, the second paragraph should include further detail and the third paragraph should wrap it up. If something has it's own section in the article then it at least deserves 2-3 sentences in the lead, depending on the size of that section. Since the lead is just a "summary" of the article, the lead shouldn't introduce new information, thus it shouldn't include actual citations. Including citations in the lead would be redundant and doesn't make much sense. Include the citations in the body of the article, not the lead. One argument is that the individuals might decide to erase information from the lead because they think it is not cited or might add "fact" tags to the lead because they think that it is uncited, I think that this is a very minor problem which can be easily remedied by reverting such edits and notifying the users that the info is indeed cited in the article. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"I do not believe that citations should exist in the lead." That's nice. If someone wants to start a thread on a policy page, let me know. As it stands this just a merry-go-round of suggested policy violation. Marskell 17:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"merry go around of suggested policy violation"? What does that even mean? We're discussing whether or not the policy should actually be changed or how the current policy should be interpreted. My first sentence is me stating my belief. Subsequent sentences is me backing up my belief with arguments. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a guideline not a policy. (Third time today, second in this thread.) WP:V and WP:BLP are policies. This page must adhere to them. If it doesn't, it's ignorable. The policies say nothing about an embargo on citations in the lead. Marskell 17:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So why say "merry-go-round of suggested policy violation"? What is that referring to? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:V only requires article to source its claims, not to source them twice (in the lead and main body). I think you're taking the citation requirement too literally. --Victor12 18:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

V requires: "a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged." It says nothing about once or twice and it says nothing about leads. (Nor should it, IMO; brevity is the soul of policy.) Marskell 18:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Then we agree... WP:V doesn't require to cite this kind of material twice (main article and lead). Just once per article is enough to comply with WP:V. --Victor12 19:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To state the obvious: it neither includes nor excludes a second citation. It asks to source any material likely to be challenged. Marskell 17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• To state what should be even more obvious, it does not require that a statement is sourced more than once in an article. If the source is in the body, then there's no requirement for it also to be in the lead. The present policy/guidelins is an invitation for reviewers to insist on redundant and ugly citations in the lead. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're arguing that this should be extended to redundancy? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations in the Lead 3 (arbitrary break)

Okay, if I understand User:Marskell correctly, he is correctly stating that this article is a guideline, whereas WP:V and WP:BLP are policies. I must admit that I myself had forgotten that for a while, but it should be remembered that this guideline is an interpretation of those policies (among others), and interpretation is subsequent to reinterpretation by subsequent editors. It is my revised feeling in this matter that while we should not say outright that citations cannot be in the article (as the arrangement of certain scientific as well as super-contentious articles make it much easier to create an effective Lead), the wording of the guideline should stress that editors should work to avoid creating Leads that use them. This way, we are not issuing an absolute command but instead entreating them to use their own editorial skills to avoid creating Leads that require citation (and likely redundancy, etc.).

This interpretation of the guideline would not interfere with the enforcement of the policy, as those articles that can be written without citations will have the impetus to go about restructuring them, and those articles that cannot successfully avoid using them do not feel put-upon to force the article to being something it cannot be. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep. WP:V in particular gives some latitude as to what the particular citation method should be; it doesn't indicate a requirement for inline citations, just a requirement of references, so one possible interpretation is that the citation can be placed as the author thinks is appropriate in the article. As long as it meets the requirements for sourcing of controversial material and verifiability, there's no need to say "Your article is in violation of Wikipedia standards" or anything similar. Likewise, there's no need to go around removing citations in ledes for purely aesthetic principles, if that causes the article to have verifiability concerns. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

So might we alter the statements to reflect that? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought it already said that? I think the problem here is that people are misinterpreting what is actually said, and thinking that absence of statement means anything goes, which is silly. Think carefully about what the guideline says ("should be carefully sourced as appropriate" in the lead; and the main point of the relevant section: "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. In particular, material likely to be challenged and quotations should be cited in the lead."). If this is unclear, try and pinpoint the exact bit causing you confusion. Carcharoth 14:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And I've always thought that as the lead is a summary of the article's topic, just give one or two general cites at the end to a general book on the topic. Only source specific statements later on, in the article, with the usual caveats about contentious material and quotes. The other exception is when an article is effectively a subarticle of a larger topic. In that case, the lead may already be going into detail in an area covered generally in the mother article, so the citations should be to a general book on, say, the history of a country, rather than on the country in general. Carcharoth 14:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

While going over what it actually says, again: Because leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, lead information on non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source. As I see it, the caveat that Arcayne wants is already there. Marskell 14:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I really couldn't disagree more. Why should there ever be any requirement for citations to be provided in the lead? The need for them would imply to me that the lead is not a summary of the article, and has introduced material not sourced elsewhere in the article. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

There is NO requirement. Sigh. Marskell 19:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• So why do some reviewers believe that there is? Because the guideline/policy does not make it clear. Perhaps you, Marskell, haven't been on the receiving end of a review in which a reviewer has insisted on citations on the lead, despite all of the information in the lead being fully sourced later in the article. But having had that experience myself, I simply want to see this guideline/policy rewritten to make it crystal clear that there is no requirement for citations in the lead so long as the sources are provided elsewhere in the article. If an editor chooses to put citations in the lead, that's a matter for him or her, but there ought to be no misunderstanding about it being a requirement. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe this will make it clearer? There is NO requirement to cite anything in Wikipedia, unless the material in question is challenged or is likely to be challenged. In practice, it makes sense to pre-emptively cite stuff you think people might question, and it makes sense to cite thoroughly in any case, to avoid making silly mistakes, and to help those checking your work after you. But there being no requirement does not mean the same as being able to insist on not having citations if someone else wants them. You can't expect a reader to go looking somewhere else in the article for the references, when the most commonly used system is to have a link right there, next to the material in question. You can't just vaguely point "over there" and expect a reader to know what you are talking about. You can't say "keep reading, all will soon be explained". It's just rude. Carcharoth 20:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Having said that, you could have an early footnote in the lead, saying "The material in this lead section is a summary of the rest of the article, and the sources for this material are referenced in the main text of the article." But you need to explicitly say that to avoid confusion on the part of the reader. You could also have this footnote right at the end of the lead section, but somewhere early on is better. This still doesn't avoid the need to explicitly cite contentious WP:BLP material at every place it is found, and citations are also always needed for quotes, though I personally references the source of quotes in the text itself. Carcharoth 21:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, thank you—Carcharoth makes the commonsensical point nicely. Just look at your lead and think, "OK, what statement is going to make somebody go to the talk page asking 'what is this?'". When you find those statements, source them. This really is sturm und drang over nothing. I've taken eight articles to FAC. I've made, literally, hundreds of edits to reviews. "Source your lead or else" is not a problem. "We don't have to source leads", meanwhile, is a widely spread meme. No, sometimes you do. So really. Marskell 21:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

With respect, since when do we actually chew the food for the reader? Do we really have to panic that they are going to flip out over the Lead, unable to find a citation when there is that super-nifty li'l TOC telling where to find info summarized int he Lead? I get what you are aiming at - I really, really do, but the inescapable part is that despite your assertion that editors will naturally avoid putting citatons in the Lead when they don't have something asking them to try and avoid is creates more problems than it resolves. Honestly, i don't see the glaring violation of WP:V if the summary' of the article doesn't have a cite but has a TOC clearly denoting where the section being summarized is. Wikipedia isn't built for children (WP:NOT), so perhaps we could stop treating the readers as if they were such. I also appreciate that Marskell has worked on eight FA, etc - I appreciate the experience, but using it like the Big Kahuna stick is akin to expertise, something which carries little or no weight in Wikipedia.

I really think we need a tad more strongly-worded suggestions to 'keep citations out of the Lead if possible'. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You sound like you can adequately make your point to reviewers who mistakenly insist on citations in the lead. The problem arises when you codify something like this in a guideline, and you get people pointing to it to justify their removal of citations that are needed. In my opinon, the current wording strikes a needed balance between these two abuses of the guidance (1- adding excessive citations to a lead; 2 - removing needed citations from a lead). Does that reassure you? Carcharoth 07:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The current wording does insist on citations in the lead. The guideline states any material in the lead that is likely to be challenged needs a cite; this is the exact same criteria for citations in the body of the article, as per WP:V. You seem to be suggesting that only material that is very likely to be challenged needs a cite in the lead, such as WP:BLP issues. Epbr123 08:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Given there are people, including reviewers, who try to force information to be re-referenced in the lead when it is perfectly adequately referenced in the body, we need to clarify here. How about somethign along the lines of "Information given in the lead which requires referencing may be referenced either where mentioned in the lead or within the body of the article"? This doesn't impose referencing in the lead, nor does it justify its removal.--Peter cohen 09:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a decision for V to make, not for LEAD to make; leads must abide by V because everything must abide by V. And beyond BLP, the wording insists on nothing. If you determine that there are no statements likely to be challenged then you may well have a citation free lead. Marskell 12:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Why do you keep bringing V into this? Nobody, so far as I can see, has disputed the need to provide references for material likely to be challenged. The discussion is simply over where and/or how many times such material needs to be cited. Amending the wording along the lines suggested by Peter cohen would certainly go a long way towards satisfying me. --Malleus Fatuarum 12:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

V neither includes nor excludes the possibility of a second citation. Your interpretation would amount to a novel rule. And can someone provide examples of this terrible scourge of reviewers asking for extra lead references? Marskell 12:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes I can provide an example, here. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

See, that is a good example: if you'd simply sourced the sentence when asked to, there'd have been no problem. Marskell 13:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• It is indeed a good example, but not of what you claim. The fact referred to was sourced, just not in the lead. --Malleus Fatuarum 13:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I still fail to see the point of having citations in the lead. If citations are for material mentioned in the main body of the article there's no need for them, because as Marskell said WP:V does not require double citations. Now, if the lead mentions something that is not in the main body of the article, then that statement does require citations but it's also a bad lead because leads should only summarize the article. As it is worded now, Wikipedia:Lead section seems to imply a need for lead citations whether or not they are repeated in the rest of the article. The review mentioned by Malleus Fatuarum is an example of how reviewers at WP:GAC and WP:FAC will probably interpret this. --Victor12 13:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)I don't actually see how we are tossing WP:V into the bin by this suggestion, Marskell. We are fulfilling our responsibility to verifiability in that we are providing citaitons in the article for statements likely to need them. While I can see that through your suggestions of the mountain cat (or whatever) that citations are sometimes unavoidable in articles. However, these should be the exception rather than the rule. Keeping Lead for its intended purpose as a summary doesn't negate verifiability; the cites are still in the article, and if the person cannot find them through the Lead which is arranged in the order of article info delivery or the Table of contents, perhaps these folk aren't quite ready for all the "tubes" of the internet just yet. Hoestly, I don't think our readers are that stupid, and I think you are selling them short by assuming that hey are going to see an Lead summary and, before reading any further (or noticing those little blue numbers in the article), they will up and leap out of the chair, have several simultaneous strokes, sit back down and dash a letter off to Jimbo about how we're not citing our material.

By keeping the Lead a summary of the article, we are allowing for the reader to get a feel for what the article says. If they see something which they think needs proof, the are more likely to read on and see that proof in the form of a citation. It is only us wiki-addicts who are going to start popping our corks if summarized claims go uncited and quite honestly, we are the last people who we should be catering to. We are all wingeing little kids, and most of us deserve to be sent off to bed without biscuits.

That last bit was bit much wasn't it? I think it was, but man - I can never really tell... ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did I say leads would cease being a summary of the article? And why would I tell a concerned editor or reader asking for a lead citation "actually, we have a rule that says we don't have to do that" when a) no such rule exists and b) I could take 30 fucking seconds and simply copy the source from the body? Malleus' example is great: two posts explaining why he doesn't have to do it and then a third editor comes along and says "I've sourced it." Marskell 14:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure you read the entirety of my post, Marskell; I was advocating us stating in the guideline that editors endeavor to avoid putting citations in the lead and instead putting them into the body of the article. Neither I nor anyone else was suggesting we tell those editors wanting to cite the lead will be hunted down and skinned alive for citing the Lead? This is a guideline page, where we interpret how WP:V works in various situations.

Apparently there is some communication breakdown happening here between us, and I am unsure how to resolve it other than an example. Let's take film articles for instance. In plot summaries, they rarely if ever cite information. The citable information usually ends up everywhere else (well, everywhere but the Lead, usually). Why is that, you may ask? Because the rest of the article is describing everything else that requires citations. Since plot summaries usually give information that one might like to see cited, does that mean that all film articles are gross violations of WP:V? Of course not. Wikifilms interpreted Verifiability the same way most folk do. You cite the information within the context in which it is used. Is the Lead summary the best place to offer the citation where its context will be perfectly understood. Of course not. That's what the article is for.

When someone is reading up on Nancy Reagan, one can see that the Lead is full of wikilinks, including those noting her as a driving force in the "Just Say No" drug awareness program. Should that be cited? Yes. Where should that be cited? Why, in the article, of course. One only needs alter their eyes down the page by 5-7 degrees to see that there is a Table of Contents". And in that Table of Contents is an actual entry that talks about this item needing citation - in this case, by name. Is there a possibility that a citation or two might be there? Try seven. And every one of them, within the context of the section they were placed in, so as to not read as disjointed.

This, more than anything else, is the problem with citations in the Lead, and why we should try to not put them in the Lead and instead work at writing better Leads: they offer information out of context with where the citation should be. They aren't encyclopedic. They are ugly and throw off the flow of the reader who we supposedly want to read out article, and makes the Lead less than engaging.

This is why we should say, in no uncertain terms that, in order to preserve Verifiability, effort should be made to not place citations in the Lead. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• Marskell is persistently misrepresenting/misunderstanding what is being said, for whatever reason. In the example I gave, sure, it took no time at all to add the citations to satisfy a reviewer who had misinterpreted the guidelines. But what did addding the citations to the lead achieve? An ugly lead, that's all. So why not rewrite the guidelines so that future reviewers are less likely to make the same misinterpretation? How hard is that to understand? --Malleus Fatuarum 17:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"...endeavor to avoid putting citations in the lead". This is mind-numbingly circular. As I've explained, we advise neither none nor ten nor a hundred. We advise writing a good lead, following policy; the number of citations (if any) is an outcome of that. We have no need to say "citations are encouraged in the lead" or "citations are discouraged in lead." We briefly describe what the policies say. How those policies are applied will then be subject to editorial discretion and consensus. At Nancy Reagan none are needed, apparently ("She experienced a great deal of criticism early in her husband's first term, mainly dealing with her decision to replenish the White House China" should be sourced—and sorry, the ToC doesn't mention White House China). On Global warming it's seven. On Cougar, two. On Intelligent design (including refs in combination notes) it's approximately 33. Fine. All you're left with then, is the aesthetic argument. A single tiny number at the end of a sentence is neither ugly nor likely to break up reading flow. Marskell 17:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we would all be served better if you could ease up on the unfair characterizations, as I find them to be a bit on the attack-y and condescending side, Marskell. I've endeavored to treat you both politely and respectfully, and would like to enjoy the same treatment as well, please. As well, I think you can drop the use of the royal we'. We're all grown-ups here, and no one needs schooling from on high.

Please listen carefully to what I am saying, because its the third time I have endeavored to say it in a clear way, and it both the most important part of the statment as well as that part of the statement you seem to be missing. You say "we advise neither none nor ten nor a hundred...we advise writing a good lead, following policy." Just to be clear, THIS is the part of the guideline we (meaning me and many of the fellow editors here) seek to change for something better. I think - and others think - that where citations can be avoided in the Lead, they should be avoided. The current phrasing challenges this wording/viewpoint, and I think that the viewpoints being brought here are being glossed over or ignored. I know that's pissing Malleus off, so please re-read the posts we have been writing and maybe respond to them without exaggeration or flippancy.

Here are the issues with the current wording I feel need addressed:

1. The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. - Why? How is the Lead different from a film plot summary? The Lead is the summary of the article, where all the statements providing the context of the citations are located.
2. In particular, material likely to be challenged and quotations should be cited in the lead. - see every comment above for input on this particular viewpoint. I will give you a hint: a lot of folk think its up to the editor to actually write a good Lead, and write the article in such a way that you can minimize the citatins without skeletizing the Lead (not sure if skeletizing is a word, but boyoboy, it sure looks nifty!).
3. Because leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, lead information on non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, a citation exception specific to leads. - talk about your circular reasoning. This says essentially nothing of value.
4. Contentious material about living persons must be cited at every iteration, regardless of the level of generality. - Absolutely true, as BLP concerns are likely to be the ones that will sue, as contentious claims can and do hurt the reputation of the subjects of the article. It is for that reason that we need to be avoiding getting into specifics in BLPs, instead summarizing the article. Leave the contentious material for the body fo the article.

I have an idea as to what the section should say, but I think its important for you to actually take a bit of time to reflect on what all of us are saying, Marskell. No one thinks that structuring good Leads that do not require citations in them is not a violation of WP:V. Maybe you ar ethinking htat we are going to surge forth (like Tom Sidaway with his personal vendetta agaisnt purty sigs :) ) and edit out out all the cites indiscriminately all across WP. This policy will allow new editors to do it the right way, and give more exerienced editors over time to square away their Leads and articles to maybe cut down on Lead section citations. Contentious articles like Intelligent Design ('may you be touched by His noodly appendage') will calm down after a while and invariable editing will clear away all the rubbish and detritus that pov'ing tends to leave. Changing this guideline allows that to happen. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I have posted at the WP:V talk page to let them know about this discussion and suggest that they decide whether they are happy for us to reach our conclusion on how it applies to the lede or whether they want it decided there.--Peter cohen 18:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My 'we' was not meant to be royal—"we Wikipedians," like. I see subtle hints that you're trying an "us v you"; read back up. I'm not the only one advocating the general intent—I'm hanging in so that this doesn't turn into guideline-by-attrition.

1. "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies. - Why?" I can't believe I'm reading that "Why?" from an admin. Sorry for being attack-y, but I can't.
2. "See every comment"? As noted, they don't all agree with you. You and Malleaus are just talking the most.
3. It is a descriptive fact. I don't know why you object, because it best supports your point: leads should be relatively generalized and thus are going to need fewer citations.
4. Even at a broad level of generality, suitable for a lead, BLP info should usually be sourced.

Ultimately, you're hanging your hat on an aesthetic viewpoint. The "rubbish and detritus" will be cleared from Intelligent design? If you cleared all that citation rubbish a stable lead would be completely impossible.

If we were to add a sentence, perhaps something like: "Editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the need to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." Marskell 18:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The present WP:LEAD guideline says that statements likely to be challenged should be cited in the lead. All I see everyone else asking for is a change admitting that all statements likely to be challenged should be cited somewhere in the article, not necessarily in the lead. I really do fail to see why that's so hard to understand, or to accept. --Malleus Fatuarum 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please stop saying everyone. I'll quote Jossi, who's P&G experience I value above yours (a compliment to him, not an insult to you): "It is quite easy, really. If you add a claim anywhere in an article, and that claim is challenged, you need to add a source." I really do fail to see why that's so hard to understand, or to accept.

But parallel conversations aren't good and this seems to have migrated WT:V. And this thread has become to personalized. Marskell 19:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, you apparently took it upon yourself to remove the disputed tag before there was any concensus that I was aware of. And you have repeatedly misrepresented my position on this issue, which I have considered to be personal. But nevertheless I believe that we may now have reached some kind of compromise in spite of that, due to the discussion on WT:V. --Malleus Fatuarum 20:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

So, in that case, no need for any more "he said she said" stuff, right? Good. SamBC(talk) 20:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's hope so. Can we please consider this conversation virtually locked at the wrong version with no one else getting their retaliation in.--Peter cohen 20:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove a tag as a "does this work?" gesture, to be clear. I have no real rancour here and we are nearly at wording we can agree on. Malleus hasn't been incivil, though this has been frustrating (the frustration being partly residual—I've watched this for two years). Marskell 20:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I wasn't aware that there was any history behind this issue, but now knowing that there was, I can understand Marskell's frustration. I too have been frustrated throughout this iteration of what now appears to have been a regular event; if it cropped up again I doubt that I would be able to maintain the same level of civility that Marskell has demonstrated. So I very much hope that this last iteration has put the issue to bed once and for all. Speaking only for myself, I believe that it has. --Malleus Fatuarum 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

See, I go off to actually do some work to feed my wikidiction, and I come back to find everyone has been jumping on the editorial trampoline! I've offered a few, rather minor changes (and I had really wanted be a tad more bold). I guess that a a real change wasn't really going to happen, as Marskell was simply 'place-holding the line against editorial attrition', so his mind wasn't going to change, and Malleus didn't seem to be in a changing place, either. I appreciate that everyone has been mostly non-attack-y. I think this is mostly done. That is, until someone else shows up seeking a new consensus. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Title equals opening words of lead

I have altered the direction of this this para; could interested editors tell me what they think. It seems to me that an article should begin with the name of the article where possible - if this is a short form so be it - if it is thought that the long form should start the article, then this should be the name of the article. Abtract 20:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your change. Although most articles are able to satisfy your idea, many other articles, like United Kingdom, the example, are better served by clearly indicating the full title of the location, rather than the common title, though Wikipedia may be equally well served by maintaining an article at the common title, as in United Kingdom. Further, it appears this change is being made relative to other edits you've made which were reverted to consensus versions as determined by the policiy as it was, and you may hve decided to avoid this by changing the policy to suit your edits. ThuranX 20:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Thuranx. What's the point of repeating the Article title at the opening of the article? Seems a wast of time, to me. GoodDay 21:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Also agree. The article name is the "common name", in general, but the actual text should refer to the proper name. --Haemo 23:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The title need not be, verbatim, the bolded text of the opening sentence, it is the subject that's more important. As this is an encyclopaedia, the most accurate and/or technical information should come first, and then any common or colloquial forms, not the other way around. Further, given User:Abtract's edit warring at United States, I don't think other editor's opinions really matter all that much to him. --G2bambino 21:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to help him (to no avail). It's up to him now. GoodDay 21:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - you get consensus to change the policy then edit pages to conform, not the other way around. Proper titles first ("Alecia Moore"), then colloquial names or psuedonyms ("known professionally as Pink") is fine to me. We are an encyclopedia should at least try to look formal, then give other terms - however, we can (and often do) use the most common names for the title (e.g. Madeline Fitzpatrick: "Madeline Margaret Genevieve Miranda Catherine Fitzpatrick more commonly known as Maddie). I know the dispute is away from my examples, but my point still stands, I think. Will ^(talk) 23:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Your point reads quite clearly to me, and, I think all others. This is common sense stuff, and trying to shoehorn the prose into some convoluted phrasing isn't going to help anyone. ThuranX 02:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I got a little carried away. Abtract 16:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bold title

Would anyone care to comment about Disappearance of Madeleine McCann where the lack of any bold in the lead is being justified by saying that the title is descriptive as per the Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker example from this page. Jooler 08:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Introducing the subject vs. introducing a name

I've noticed that some articles' intro sentences use constructions like "X is one name for ..." and "X refers to ...", essentially describing the name rather than the entity itself. That would make sense in cases where the article actually is about the term (e.g. Moonies), but in other cases I find it makes a rather weak intro. In particular, it seems to come up in cases where there's some naming dispute (West Germany). It seems to me that this distracts attention away from the subject of the article itself, and focuses attention on naming issues. These are of major importance to some editors, but probably not for many readers. I suggest that this page should say that the intro sentence should be worded so as to introduce the entity that the article is about, rather than the term used to describe it. --Reuben 22:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure "accessible overview" and "leads for poor articles" are consensus

I just came across this page (Wikipedia has spawned a whole lot of guidelines) by way of someone putting a {{Template:tooshort}} tag on the Mzoli's Meats article, which I deleted. Although I've seen it both ways, it's redundant, confusing, and hurts legibility to use the introduction as a stand-alone mini-article before the full-length article. Usually one or two sentences are enough to identify the subject for the reader to let them know if they've found waht they're looking for or want to read, and what the significance and context are. If the introduction is a summary of the article it doesn't need its own footnotes, although it's best to cite some sorts of claims of notability. At most an introduction length should bear some relation to the size and complexity of the article itself. A short article or stub (this guideline calls them "poor quality" articles, which I think is a little much) doesn't need an introduction half as long as the article itself. I especially don't agree with the admonition to expand the lead first before addressing the article itself. If the "tooshort" tag gets applied to a brief article it encourages people to add unorganized jumbles of material that really ought to be integrated into the article itself. I think what I'm describing is a common, if not preferred practice for developing Wikipedia articles. I would just edit these two sections to this effect but I see that the this page has some history so I wanted to float that issue here first.Wikidemo 14:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Mzoli's is too short; the police raid should at least be given a sentence, given that it takes one of only three sections. A physical description is needed somewhere as well (all under one roof or outdoor?).

In any case, that the "lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article" is a long-established, widely repeated guideline. The wording may change from place to place (at WP:WIAFA: "summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the greater detail in the subsequent sections") but the principle has firm consensus. Marskell 15:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with many of Wikidemo's points. Marskell's quote (IMO) applies to articles big enough to be judged at Peer review and FAC. The "leads for poor articles" section comes across as an essay rather than guideline material. We should eliminate judgemental phrases like "poor articles", "poor condition" and "reasonably well-written articles". A stub or short article may very well written and in good condition, yet the author(s) have been unable to source enough information to expand it. Clearly there are some poor and haphazard articles, but this page (or any part of the MoS for that matter) isn't capable of teaching people to how to write. The difficultly of writing a lead for a short article is worth discussing. A requirement that the lead is a comprehensive topic summary may lead to repetition within a short article. Like Wikidemo, I wonder if the "create an FA-quality lead" approach produces a balanced article. It might be fine for a work-in-progress but doesn't help our readers. Colin°^Talk 15:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That section was added after debates a few months ago. OK, we want a concise overview and we want the lead to reflect the body. But what if the body's no good? We can change the tone, if you like, but the point is worth addressing. The other concern: people often only read the lead, so you really should try to get it right first.

And I don't think this only applies to large articles or FA candidates. As pointed out, the restaurant Wikidemo points to could easily have two more sentences in the lead based on the advice here. I do agree that some articles can be fine and appropriate just as stubs; hadn't meant to imply otherwise. Marskell 15:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I broke out a paragraph for stubs. Marskell 16:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This may be one of those cases where talking about it on the guideline page doesn't translate to consensus on Wikipedia as a whole. A short article like Mzoli's could have more sentences in the introduction, but that does not mean it should. As I said it's redundant, hurts readability, and is not the only way of doing things out there in main space (where most longer introductions to short articles are not very helpful). It's more work as well, an extra layer of complexity on a changing article. I also think that highlighting some facts over others as being important sets an odd tone that is more pedantic than encyclopedic.

Leads can cause problems in longer articles as well. Today's featured article, Chad), has what I would consider a serious flaw due to an overly long and detailed lead. The lead mentions that Chad used to be a part of French Equatorial Africa but the body does not say that. To study the history of Chad I would find the article, scan the first sentence of the lead to be sure I found the country and not something about election ballots, then go straight to the history section. I would not expect to have to read the entire lead in hopes of gleaning additional details. That is confusing, and far more than doubles the effort. Now I have to see if one of the two sections is wrong, or just incomplete.Wikidemo 18:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I take some of your points—I hope keeping stubs separate helps, and we can work on the wording. But I find others odd indeed. What if, with the restaurant, we added: "It provides live entertainment and often draws crowds of hundreds. A 2006 police raid, in which a number of people were arrested, received headlines and led to claims of police incompetence." Or something like that. Would that "hurt readability"? Why shouldn't you highlight some facts over others? That's the essence of editorial discretion. So no, I don't get this idea that with relatively short articles we should have two sentences and move along. I certainly don't see that as the direction Wiki has been heading. Marskell 22:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the Mzoli's example is that we don't really have a comprehensive article, so the article can't be balanced yet. Only scattered fragments of the history are there. Sometimes this is not obvious until late in the construction of an article, as the sources peter out into a barren wasteland of drought-stricken South African veld. At that point, you just have to leave the article in its unfinished state and hope that more will get added later. Summarising the incomplete history in the lead then risks exacerbating the balance problems. I've long thought that a separate paragraph on writing leads for short article was needed. Sometimes, short articles have no lead! Carcharoth 10:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes in the lead section (NOT references!)

What do people think about adding something here about footnotes in the lead section to clarify points that need explaining at that point (rather than later in the article), but which can overwhelm the lead if explained in full? A good example is long and complicated alternative names. It is all too easy for this to overwhelm the beginning of an article. Look at Abucalsis, Averroes, Rhazes, and Avicenna for examples. The experienced reader glides past all the name stuff, but I fear this can be confusing to less experienced readers. When this happens in the main body of an article, a few sentences as an aside can deal with the matter, I use a footnote to expand slightly on the point. I think doing the same in the lead can be helpful as well. The first footnote in Orion (mythology) is a good example of this. I also tend to shunt condescending "common mis-spellings or mistakes" into footnotes. See The Waste Land for an examples of this. Another example of a footnoted aside, though not in the lead section, is at Ptolemy (name)#Etymology and history. Should this technique of "footnote asides", and its application to lead sections, be explained briefly and clearly in this guideline? Carcharoth 11:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think of footnotes as references. I'm opposed to inline or any other kind of references in the lead. Citations, sources, anything. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes are not the same as references, despite the fact that the tag used to create footnotes is <ref>. Footnotes can contain references, explanatory comments, pointers to other articles on a specific topic, or other parenthetical matter. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you show me some examples of the differences? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at the footnotes in Recursion theory, or at footnote 5 of Peano axioms. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the scientific citation guidelines point out that the first sentence of an article is a good place to put footnotes for general references. Where else could they go? There is no blanket prohibition on sources in the lede section. The question is whether they are required, not whether they are permitted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't they go below the lead? The footnotes that is. As to whether they are "required" or "permitted". The community could easily decide that footnotes don't belong in the lead and make the relevant changes to the policy or style guidelines to suit that. The real discussion here should be whether or not footnotes or citations should or should not be permitted in the lead and if so, when. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 16:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The point of putting inline citations on the first sentence is to show that those are general references for the topic of the article. Where else would you suggest putting such citations?

It certainly is acceptable for the lede to have footnotes and/or citations; it seems unlikely that a blanket prohibition could gain consensus.

In paticular, all of the citations in the lede of Peano axioms are recommended by the scientific citation guideline, because they are claims that a person published something in a certain year, and guideline asks for citations for such claims. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, The lead is actually supposed to be a "summary" of the article, not an introduction. Since it's a summary the info in the lead should be redundant with the article itself and thus any citations would and should be redundant. Thus not required. The lead of the Peano axioms article doesn't seem to correspond to this. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that footnotes are not the same thing as citations (a footnote is just one way to cite a reference, and footnotes can also be used for other parenthetical material). Neither are required in the lead section, but both are permissible. Geometry guy 19:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The lede section is both a summary and an introduction. It can't be otherwise, since it's the first thing that readers see when they read an article. And this very guideline begins with the sentence "The lead section, lead, lede, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first heading. " Exactly like a newspaper article must be capable of being cut from the bottom, our ledes should be able to stand alone; but when they don't, they serve as an introduction to the article below. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To me it is simple... Citations in the lead should not be required, but neither should they be banned. We want good writing, not straight jackets. Editorial judgment, and all that. Blueboar 18:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that current policy fits what Blueboard says (citations in lead neither required nor banned), this discussion seems a little moot. If people want the policy clarified in this matter, then policy would have to be changed, which would need to be discussed at the very least on the talk page of the relevant policy (ie, WT:V). SamBC(talk) 19:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You do both realise, Blueboar and Sambc, that you are commenting in the wrong section? I did say "NOT REFERENCES" in the section title for a reason. This section is about footnotes. The citations section(s) is several screens up that way <points upwards>. Carcharoth 21:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we were both responding to what people had actually just said, which seemed to be a case of thread drift. SamBC(talk) 21:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Warhawk

Can someone help our lead and cites on Warhawk? Contact me.--Playstationdude 21:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject

A proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Lead Paragraph Cleanups seems to have attracted enough interested participants to justify a WikiProject; if you're interested, please add your name.

More to the point, the originator of the proposal seems to have gone on an extended wikibreak. If someone (previously signed up?) wants to be bold, now would be a good time to actually start up the WikiProject, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Get the lead right first?

I don't like very much the section on "Leads for poor articles" which was added this spring and doesn't seem to have been much discussed. The main thing I don't like about it is that it describes how to go about improving an article, which is not the purpose of the manual of style. And I disagree with the main piece of advice it gives, namely "Get the lead right first". How can you do that, when you don't know what the content is going to be? This is contrary to the practise of many good editors at Wikipedia and does not reflect any sort of consensus.

"Get the lead right first" sends out the wrong message. There is already a disproportionate amount of editor time spent fiddling with leads. Many times I have seen warring over fine details of the lead, when the real problem was that the body of the article was inadequate. And many times, an editor has come along and substantially improved such an article, so that the lead needs to be completely rewritten and all the previous arguments evaporate into irrelevance. The point is, it is very difficult to write a good lead when the article is poor, and it will almost certainly need a complete rewrite when the article is improved. In contrast, if the article is good, writing the lead becomes an easy joy and disagreements are rare. So while I agree that it is a good idea to produce a provisional lead once an article becomes longer than a stub (e.g., it actually has sections) and while I also agree that such a lead need not be constrained to summarize the article, in many cases there is simply no point in trying "to get it right", and it is not the place of this guideline to give such advice. Geometry guy 14:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Epbr123 15:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I weakened it. The immediate reason it was added was Slim pointing out that if we ask for the lead to reflect the body, then we need to account for poor articles. Marskell 15:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that is certainly better. Geometry guy 17:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the new version is better. Wikidemo 17:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Motorcycle cop

I've removed a picture of a motorcycle cop with a caption. It seems somewhat obscure to me (possibly because I'm English and possibly because I don't associate that phrase with policemen, who in my experience tend to somewhat more courteous than that). I don't object if it seems obvious to everybody else--it might be just me--but I've a feeling that it's probably presuming too much shared background, and if it confuses me it seems likely to confuse others. --Tony Sidaway 05:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"Just the facts ma'am" is a catch-phrase whose whose origins come from the US radio/TV police series Dragnet. The phrase is understood (here in Australia at least) as a request for people to be succinct and relevent when giving out information. Just as how lead sections should be. Could you reinsert the image and see if others have any issue with it? Kransky (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, you may reinsert the image with my blessing while we discuss it. My point (and perhaps I'm alone in this regard) is that to me the picture and the caption merely appeared incongruous. --Tony Sidaway 05:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I think most Americans over 30 will get "Just the facts"; Tony was probably just confused by the added picture of a motorcycle cop, which really makes no sense,as Sgt Joe Friday and his many partners were detectives, not CHPs. I found it interesting to note (as I learned from Dragnet), that the phrase was actually never uttered by Friday; it comes from the parody St. George and the Dragonet. I'd say the phrase is a good choice, but only if there's a more appropriate picture, and a pic of Webb from Dragnet would not, I don't think, be fair use in this instance, so I think it should be left out. Eaglizard (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking again, I think I only gathered that this motorbike guy was supposed to be a policeman from the caption. His overalls don't look like police uniform to me, and his helmet doesn't suggest anything. You could have captioned it "pizza delivery guy" and I would have been none the wiser. We have different cultural expectations in different countries. --Tony Sidaway 07:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It was the best photo I could find on Flickr or Wikicommons that was suitably (un)licenced. He is a Japanese motorcycle cop. I'll keep looking...Kransky (talk) 09:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Tony may have a good, if implicit, point: if the phrase only makes sense to Americans above a certain age, then it's probably not appropriate for the encyclopedia in general. In particular, guidelines and policies should be as free from potentially confusing issues as possible. So before spending any more time looking for a better pic, you might ask yourself if this text really needs to be in the article in the first place. I don't think it really adds anything in particular, what would be lost by just leaving it out? Eaglizard (talk) 02:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The catch-phrase is known outside the US, and it is better known than the TV program. Kransky (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Lead discussion

There is an RfC on a dispute about content and structure for the lead section of an article on a movie, please join the ongoing discussion here: "What the Bleep Do We Know!?" - Lead discussion. Dreadstar † 21:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)