Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section

Wikipedia talk:Lead section/archive1

Controversies

This part is dubious: offer the topic's most interesting points, including a mention of the topic's most prominent controversies. The lead section should offer the most relevant uncontroversial points, it's no battleground. Templates (or their substituted output) indicating problems like "hoax", "stub", "mergeto", etc. are okay, but hopefully no permanent part of a lead section. -- Omniplex 16:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper will grab the attention of a reader by mention of the topic's most prominent controversies. As an extreme example, some editors, in an article about how perfectly sphereical the earth is, the editors would have the lead section should include a reference to how Flat Earth it is, too. It is, perhaps, a way of thinking, a following of advertising's philosophy of "Quickly Catch the Attention of the Reader". I find myself in agreement with Omniplex. Wikipedia is a platform to present the knowledge Mankind has created. As Law and Choas are opposites, knowledge and controversy are often opposite. Presenting knowledge in terms of its contoversy might be effective once in a while. But it would be a bad guideline. Terryeo 18:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking in article titles

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

Expanding the lead

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

References

I've removed that references shouldn't be added to the intro, because they very definitely should be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And when I have a bit more time, I'll revert, as you didn't follow the consensus reached above! Unfortunately, you made many edits today, instead of previewing before saving, so it's very difficult to find and fix your mistakes. I suppose I should just revert the entire thing....

--William Allen Simpson 21:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus can override policy, William. All edits that are challenged or likely to be challenged must be sourced. All negative material about living persons, whether challenged or not, must be sourced. It makes no difference whether those claims are in the intro or elsewhere. See WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is it appropriate to mention "lede"? The intros of our articles aren't known as the "lede." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slim, I must say I disagree. The claims do not need a reference in the lead if they are properly referenced later in the article, which was the consensus. The claims can be factchecked with the references on the main body of the article, so by no means it would be a violation of WP:V. Tito xd^(?!?) 17:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims should be referenced the first time they're made, and anyway, not everything in the intro will necessarily be repeated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they should be referenced where they are explained in the most detail; if something is mentioned in the lead, then it should be mentioned at greater detail further down the article (assuming that the article has several sections, of course). Otherwise, those details should not be in the lead section at all. Tito xd^(?!?) 23:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a point. When a person's name is first used, the full name is used and after that, last name only (barring difficulties with 2 common names). Generally, the concensus of editors has been to supply a reference at the first mention of a subject. But I too have seen lead paragraphs which would read more smoothly without several footnotes cluttering their smoothness, where the paragraph makes passing mention of a datum which is later expanded. Perhaps the problem is one of style. By using common english and common knowledge in the lead paragraphs, the need for references might be minimized. Terryeo 14:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's shorter now, I missed three "lede", good riddance. I think it's better readable now. First I missed some details, but later I saw that they were only at different places. More KISS and less instruction creep is good. Maybe the question of references or not deserves its own section. -- Omniplex 14:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Omniplex. Tito, here are some examples of intros I've written. If you look at Ernest Gellner, according to your thesis, all these points and quotes would have to be included again in the text, so that we could supply the references. First, that would be unnecessarily repetitive, but worse, it would leave us with quotations in the intro that had no source, which isn't acceptable. Same with Bernard Williams, and Night (book). None of the material in those intros (as I recall) is repeated in the body of the articles, and there's no reason it should be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from below

Should the lead be referenced if the material in it is mentioned in the core of the article? -- Samir धर्म 03:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question is for scientific articles specifically, where tradition in review articles in the literature IS to cite in the review. I view the perfect medical article for example to emulate the style of a review article, but still be accessible to all -- Samir धर्म 05:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Query

I stumbled on this while trying to find out whether the whole lead needs to be a summary of later sections. The lead on this project page implied no, and that is the common practice, but that was not clear in the later sections so I added it. In doing so, I believe I found a compromise consistent with SlimVirgin's objections to the consensus about references, after viewing her examples:

"Appropriate supporting references should be provided for introductory definitions, but citations of sources for statements detailed in later sections should occur in those sections, rather than in the lead."

I hope this helps. LossIsNotMore 00:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Loss, I couldn't work out what your sentence meant, so I removed it, and I have no objection to the consensus about references, which is that we have to follow WP:V and WP:RS. Can you say what the following sentence means? "Statements defining the subject of the article in the first paragraph are not required to be summaries of sections after the lead, as the other paragraphs of the lead should be." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; in the first paragraph, there is no need for defining or context-providing statements to be summaries of other parts of the article, like the remainder of the lead section should be. For example, in Ernest Gellner, your first paragraph of the lead section defines him as "cited as one of the world's 'most vigorous intellectuals' [1] and a 'one-man crusade for critical rationalism,' [2]." That is an appropriate definition, so those statements do not need to be summaries of things in subsequent sections. (The non-summary statement in the third paragraph of your lead does not conform to this style guide, though.)

Sorry, I still don't follow. Can you show me an example of what it is (rather than what it's not)? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay:

Intro/lead section statement location	Does it need to be a summary of something later in the article?	Should it be sourced with cited references?
First paragraph, providing context or defining terms:	No	Maybe (see WP:CITE)
Subsequent paragraphs:	Yes	No, those should occur where the details are.

LossIsNotMore 00:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, the references are appropriate there. For the remaining paragraphs of the lead, which should be entirely comprised of summaries of later sections, references should not appear, per the consensus on this talk page above, which does not violate WP:V. Do you think there is something in WP:V or WP:RS which implies that intro summaries should be cited when the summarized statements are already? If not, please replace my proposed compromise. LossIsNotMore 00:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References belong in the lead just as they do anywhere else, if they are needed. I'm sorry, I'm not following you: "Do you think there is something in WP:V or WP:RS which implies that intro summaries should be cited when the summarized statements are already?" No idea what you mean. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find anything in WP:V or WP:RS which implies that statements need to be sourced the first time they appear in summary form, as well as or instead of where they appear in detail? LossIsNotMore 00:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now I see. Thank you. :-) WP:V and WP:RS say that any contentious point, or anything that is challenged, has to be sourced, and of course any quote. It doesn't matter which part of the article they're in. Where did this idea come from that the intro is different in that regard? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not opposed to adding citations to challenged points, but in the portion of the intro/lead which is supposed to be a summary, the point occurs in detail later in the article. Since this guideline suggests that significant controversies should be mentioned in the intro, that means some contentions statements might get there too. For example, in Battery electric vehicle, the point that US auto maufacturers have been accused of sabotaging their EV efforts is recited in the intro, but it's only sourced in the controversy section (and not very well at that -- which is one of the two reasons why I was wondering about this today.) If you look above, there are many opinions on the subject. LossIsNotMore 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main motivation I think is to make sure the citations occur for the detailed statements instead of their abstract, which may be assumed to come after the summary in the intro is read, however, after re-reading some of those comments above, I can't say that there really was a consensus (after the change was made there were a lot of objections.) I'll revise accordingly. LossIsNotMore 04:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loss, your edits are very confusing. This: "Statements providing context or defining the subject of the article in the first paragraph are not required to be summaries of sections after the lead, as the other paragraphs of the lead should be," is meaningless, and your additions about references are unnecessary. The policy dealing with references is WP:V. The guideline is WP:RS. This page doesn't have to say anything about references. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to "Okay, now I see"? You reverted your own change of "needs to" to "should". Let me try rewording. LossIsNotMore 07:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If disputed, material in the lead should have a specific source provided. However I don't see why such annotation couldn't be done with {{inote}} or some other method that does not produce footnotes cluttering the text. Annotation that is necessary to clear up a dispute, but is unlikely to be of interest to readers, can always be included in a non-disruptive format. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V

<<< Sorry, but this whole conversation evades me. Policy cannot be bypassed by a guideline or, as in this case, a style guide. Consensus of editors cannot bypass policy either. References should be provided in article's lead, and the rationale is quite simple: Many readers do not explore the article itself, but are content to read just the lead. That is why a lead needs to summarize the main points, and where necessary provide references. The need to comply with WP:V and apply WP:CITE includes all material in the article, including the lead. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent the lead summarizes material contained in the article, there is no need to duplicate references in the lead. Rjensen 17:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anything contentious or likely to be challenged (or anything that actually is challenged), and any quotes, have to be referenced, whether they are in the lead or not. WP:V doesn't make any exceptions for the introduction. Where did this idea come from that the lead section is different? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the discussion above, Rjensen, you'll see there was no consensus to add that references aren't necessary in the lead section, and the change was proposed by Joshbuddy, who is not a regular editor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters who proposed the change, Slim. That said, this is a style guideline; the page sets down what should happen, unless there's a good reason to argue otherwise. The examples you put above are good arguments of a lede that needs citations; however, I can see other places (e.g. Hurricane Katrina) that need to be summarized extensively in order to have a decent lead, and in which references for everything aren't the best idea. I don't think anyone is arguing about contentious points being referenced, but rather about having superfluous references. Tito xd^(?!?) 19:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The lead section will have information that is covered in more detail in later paragraphs. We have markup capability to jump to any subheading if we link the subheading to a word in the lead with a pipe. Then the jumped to subheading should contain the references which substantiate any statement the lead makes. On the subject of references within the lead, I have seen strong objections to external links in the lead. Perhaps external links in the lead is the kind of reference the discussion revolves around? Terryeo 19:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it does make a difference who proposed it, Tito, because an experienced editor would know that no proposal here can supercede WP:V. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But that's where we disagree: having references in the lead or outside the lead does not affect WP:V. As long as we have the references, we've satisfied that requirement. Tito xd^(?!?) 20:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any claim that is challenged needs a reference; it doesn't matter where it is in the article. It could be repeated a thousand times, if someone challenges an example of it in the intro, you have to add a reference. Also, you forget that articles aren't written by just one editor. Something could be unreferenced in the intro, but referenced elsewhere in the text; then someone removes the later one, and you're left with the unreferenced material in the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that we'll have to agree to disagree. If the text is challenged, you can just say "scroll down" and that will solve the issue. If the reference is removed, then you just readd it, as it will be available in the history anyways. Tito xd^(?!?) 22:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But why not just have it in the intro in the first place? ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

STRONG vs. B

Say to use the STRONG html tag and not B, for Bold title. Same for many others of these advice pages. --User:Jidanni 2006-07-26

html directly in articles is frowned upon. We already have a wiki format to do that anyway, and it would still be semantically not very appropriate. Circeus 21:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semantically the ideal would probably be <strong class="leadname"> or something. But wiki format is definitely preferred, yes, because it's easier to read. It's not good semantics, but I say this in a nested definition list used for indentation, so . . . —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My revert

Stevertigo, I reverted your changes because I don't feel they were improvements. (1) It's not clear what any of your bulleted points would mean in practice; (2) there is no particular "order" that things have to be written in; (3) it is known as the "lede" in journalism (for a particular reason), but not here; (4) it's not true that it should "never" be limited to one or two sentences, because it depends on the length of the article; (5) there were grammatical errors e.g. "in proportion with" and unclear phrases like "cited references" (what's an uncited reference?). The previous version was straightforward and clear. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the original wording and also question the usefulness of the bullet points:

1. Context - describing the category or field in which the topic belongs.

2. Definition - what the term refers to as it is used in the given context.

3. Explanation - deeper meaning and background.

4. Overview - how the topical context relates to other topics.

5. Contrast - related, similar, or opposite terms, to disambiguate from the topic

I have not seen any articles that follow these, and would argue that imposing this to 1.2 million articles a posteriori may be unnatainable. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it again, because articles do not follow these, and there's no need to. Can Steve, or whoever wants to add it, show some examples of leads that do this? I can't even work out what it means exactly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure about the limitation of "up to four paragraphs". Some articles may need more to be summarized properly. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I can put back "several". SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo, rather than continuing to revert, could you please say what the above would mean in practise, or give an example of a lead section that does this? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have a lot of time to comment, except to say these are not rules per se, but a heirarchy of requirements with the last ones being less necessary as the first. I dont understand how much more clear I could talk about a listing of 5 (count them, FIVE) bullet points. You can change or fine tune them if you like, but those points are basic requirements for a lede. These represent a simple methodology which Ive been using (with some success) for years in forming a description of articles. It also represents my own understanding of browse-reading, where in the context of reading a large article people will scan other articles. This requires that those scanned articles be to the point, and not mugglesome in their readability. You seem to be reverting based on several nitpicking several points, and then politely request that I talk "instead of reverting." Make whatever corrections are necessary to improve it, rather than trying to slim everything down to anorexia. -Ste|vertigo 19:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these suggestions are not helpful in practice, wheras the suggestion to summarize the body is extremely useful and simple and effective. Among other things, it's not really clear what is meant by "how the topical context relates to other topics." Wouldn't the topical context itself be the article's relation to other topics? Christopher Parham (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't understand what that means. It's not a question of nit-picking, just a failure to understand, and we can't edit something if we don't know what it's trying to say. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo, please provide some examples of leads that more or less follow this advice. If we have firm examples, we may be able to find other ways to word your edit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like my version just fine. I take issue of course with Jossi's notion of what "original" means. You can call other friends to back you up if you like, but the usage of a few basic bullet points is so basically useful I regard it as beyond your business to decide unilaterally. Take it to Medcom or Arbcom if you have problems. I can cite hundreds of examples - particularly from the sciences. Applying this modal approach to controversial articles is a useful tool whether you can see it or not. Its obvious that we arent going to agree on much of anything. -Ste|vertigo 12:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us a couple of examples, so we can see what you mean? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example 1

Baal teshuva (Hebrew: בעל תשובה; for a woman: בעלת תשובה, baalat teshuva; plural: בעלי תשובה, baalei teshuva) is a Hebrew term refering to a person who has repented. Baal teshuva may be translated literally as "possessor of repentance", or translated idiomatically as "one who has done repentance." The term has historically referred to a Jew who had transgressed the Halakha ("Jewish law") and completed a process of introspection and "repentance". Modern day usage usually refers to a formerly non-Orthodox Jew who has adopted observance of Orthodox Judaism, although outside Orthodoxy some use this term to refer to an adoption of Conservative or Reform Judaism by one who was previously not observant at all. To connote the modern usage exclusively, some use the term hozer bi'teshuva, or "one who returns in repentance".

Thank you. That's clearer now, and I can see your bullet points would fit certain topics very well. But how do they fit in with, for example, the introduction of George_W._Bush? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Context - describing the category or field in which the topic belongs.

2. Definition - what the term refers to as it is used in the given context.

3. Explanation - deeper meaning and background.

4. Overview - how the topical context relates to other topics.

5. Contrast - related, similar, or opposite terms, to disambiguate from the topic

They dont, and thats a good point. Bios are an entirely different mode of writing. Perhaps we need to outline the modes we deal with here. Obviously encyclopedic writing is expository, but there are sub-modes like WP:BIO for particular types of articles. -Ste|vertigo 01:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example 2

In geopolitics, geostrategy refers to foreign policy motivated by a desire for the control of foreign geographic resources. "Oil geostrategy" and "global energy policy", for example, are largely synonymous with "petroleum politics." Geostrategists advocate proactive action, such as use of diplomacy, economic leveraging, threats and usage of military force, to approach geopolitical situations from a nationalist point-of-view. Hence their ideas are relevant principally to certain national contexts—the nationality of the strategist, the strength of their native country's resources, the scope of their country's goals, the political environment of the time, and the technological factors that affect military, political, economic, and cultural engagement.

As such, geostrategy is related to globalization, and represents a way nations or agencies plan to increase their control of marketable resources within foreign markets, and thereby profit from transactions in supplying (ie. "matching") large scale economic "demands". Because relative national strength and dominance (economic and military) are intrinsic to any operable concepts of "strategy," anti-globalisation critics of geostrategy assert that "geostrategy" is a pseudoscientific gloss for used by dominant nations to justify imperialist or hegemonic aspirations.

Your proposal may apply to certain type of articles, such as topical articles that explores the use of a term as per the examples above. But it would not work on biographies, geographical articles, and many others. An excercise would be to check 10 random articles and see if the proposed treatment works. From my own test, 9 out of 10 did not (He Knows You Know, Troy H. Middleton, Autopsy (band), Os du Randt, Nature study, Revolutionary Socialist League (UK), Ernest Callenbach, Kentucky General Assembly, Foreign direct investment, and Two-node cluster (the latter ws the only one that could benefit from such lead treatment). Nevertheless, we may be able to add some wording to the style guide and propose a specific treatment to the lead for such articles in which it may be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You both make a good point in this regard - if a methodology applies mostly to one type of article then it should be stated so. I often work on articles where the term is subjective and therefore controversial: Truth, Theology, Palestinian refugee, etc. We can (as I said above) take a look at the basic modalities that these fall under - in my view, the most important typology is the distiction between subjective and objective topics. Articles about concepts trancend articles about nouns, and need rigorous explanation. Noun topics ("nounics") have their ambiguities handled by differentiation in title, and the lede can just get to the meat. Concept articles which fail to have deep disambiguating explanations on the other hand tend to be difficult to read and uninteresting - as the material below is not likely to be any better written. Regards to both of you, -Ste|vertigo 08:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Stevertigo's 5 point program for introductions might fit well in some contexts, such as scholarly introduction. But Wikipedia has many editors of many educational levels, some of whom speak English as a second language. I would prefer the guideline present very easy to follow, but specific guide. In reading through the kind of complicated discussion, I don't see much gain has been introduced. In general, as simple as possible seems to work here. Perhaps it is not the most substial method, but in the grit and sweat of many editors, simple is stronger. (I think) Terryeo 02:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modes of writing

Stevertigo, I'm unclear about what most of your new section means. For example, can you say what this means? "Object articles deal with particular objects, and this definition is accomplished largely through disambiguation guidelines ..." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few articles, directing articles, listing articles containing the term, such as Space Opera and Engram, that do nothing but disambiguate. Myself, I would prefer these "lists of articles on Wikipedia, each specialized" be kept as simple as possible. But generally, at least as of late, I've seen more disambiguation in articles than is really necessary. I really object to a reader first having to read a 2 sentence disambiguation notice in order to understand the obvious, that he has found what he wanted to read. Terryeo 07:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. But I'm still very unclear what "this definition is accomplished largely through disambiguation guidelines ..." could mean. What definition? How can a definition be "accomplished"?

Anyway, we can't write general WP:LEAD guidelines with only a small number of pages in mind, and as you said above, best to keep it simple. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]