Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

JA: Copying some stuff from above so I can edit in sections.

JA: The word policy refers to a specific norm of conduct. You signify your cognizance of and consent to these rules for your action each time you click the SAVE button at the bottom of the edit window. You contractually obligate yourself to abide by these policies as a condition of using this software resource to edit pages. The word principle is more equivocal or general, as it can refer either to a descriptive law or to a normative law, and so it is too ambiguous to properly fit the situation here. So thank you for calling that to my attention. I will amend it forthwith. Jon Awbrey 01:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your position seems to be that users enter a click-through agreement when editing Wikipedia that forms a legal contract to respect the policies you call non-negotiable. That is an unusual position, and I don't believe it is shared by Wikimedia's legal counsel, though I'd be happy to ask. The idea strikes me as bizarre -- are you suggesting that users who do not follow WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV are breaking the law? The current click-through statement only refers to the verifiability policy in any case, not to NPOV or NOR. Regardless of this, I think your use of the terms "policy" and "principle" is confusing. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defines a policy as "an overall plan, principle, or guideline"; in other words, principle can be synonymous with policy.

However, in the context of Wikipedia, policy typically refers to specific documents (pages). It is absolutely not true that these documents are not negotiable. We require and encourage their negotiation and improvement. The word principle is not used in Wikipedia ambiguously, is not commonly understood to refer to documents, and thus strikes me as a better term to use than the disambiguation between "policy" and "implementation of policy." Given that I do not share your legalistic interpretation of the policy, I don't think the distinction between normative and descriptive is relevant. Again, if you want, we should ask User:BradP to comment, as he is the Foundation's attorney.--Eloquence* 05:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on the InterNet. But I am real pressed for time today, so please review this brief, to wit, Social Contract, and maybe it will serve to refresh our Common Senses for the sake of another day's Animadversions. Jon Awbrey 19:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Now you've lost me entirely ^^;; Kim Bruning 19:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Metzenberg, I reverted your edit because you seemed to be mixing up issues. The policy already deals with self-published sources elsewhere, and I think all or most of what you wrote is covered in WP:RS. Also, I'm not sure it's invariably correct that material in journals and newspapers should be regarded with greater skepticism than material that has been peer-reviewed. That's going to be true a lot of the time, but not invariably. I don't think we should let the issue of peer review be used as a general battering ram. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

He is probably thinking particularly of pseudo-science, where his edit is a good rule of thumb. But peer review is not a magic talisman of truth; it is quite often a combination of a copyedit and surviving AfD - i.e., the article is not irreparably flawed, let's see what the world thinks of it. Some newspapers are more credible than some peer-reviewed journals. (Also, some editors make a practice of citing obscure journals, in the hope that no-one will be able to verify their citation; this is a bad thing.)

The following comes fairly close to what I think we mean by "non-negotiable"

. Enforcement of these three policies is non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. It is very important that any changes to this page have wide consensus; edits that do not have it are likely to be removed.

Comments? Septentrionalis 20:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Violates Wikipedia:No binding decisions, from all three sides. Kim Bruning 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems Wikipedia:No binding decisions isn't very binding. Jkelly 23:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've restored Eloquence's distinction between the policy pages and the underlying principles, which seemed like a good way to get the point across. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not so sure.... we cannot call something a principle here, and call it a policy in their respective pages... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I personally like the "principles" wording, at a glance at least. But then again I'm not a real lawyer about WP:V, I've always cared more about the spirit than the letter of it. --W.marsh 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NBD seems like a total contradiction, by the way. No binding decisions except... that we have no... binding decisions. Nice. --W.marsh 00:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who disagrees with my edit should feel free to revert. Jossi, I think the point is that the particular wording of a policy page might be tweaked so long as the principle/spirit of the policy (what I would call the policy itself) isn't changed; and the policy/principle distinction gets that across. However, as I said, if you disagree, feel free to revert. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Does my last tweak satisfy the concerns? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 00:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it was a good edit. Jkelly 00:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you, Jossi. :-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

We could also update the other three policies with the same wording. Would do you the honors, SM? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:NBD does make an exception for Foundation bans, which are binding until reversed. These three policies are (as far as I can see) even more supported by the Foundation and Jimbo. Septentrionalis 20:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

But declaring random stuff "non negotiable" is a bit of a problem you see. No matter who supports what, it makes certain things very hard. Kim Bruning 21:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree; but are WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR random? (I think the second sentence, restricting edits on this page, is more of a problem than "non-negotiable", myself.) Septentrionalis 00:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: The word Principle is not synonymous with the word Policy. It is not enough that two words might be interpreted in some contexts as meaning the same thing. Words are only synonyms if all of their meanings in all conceivable contexts are the same. There is at present no hint of consensus to substitute principle for policy in this context and there never will be. Jon Awbrey 03:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. But this edit:

"The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

... captures the spirit of it, addresses the concerns expressed, and may be better that:

"These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

Don't you think? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem I see is someone on an individual article saying they are following "the principle" even when their actions are in direct contradiction to this policy page. If they disagree with the policy they are welcome to bring it up for discussion here, at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, but that does not mean they are welcome to unilaterally over-ride or "negotiate" it among a couple of like-minded editors on the individual article or versus a lone individual advocating adherence to WP:V against a host of pseudo-POV pushers. In that sense, the policy and not the principle, is non-negotiable, and it should be stated as such here. —Centrx→talk • 16:22, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: You can all relax now. As of this instant, WP:NBD is no longer policy. The {policy} tag on that project turned out to be just asking for self-deletion, so I helped it along. Jon Awbrey 03:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: A little hystery:

• Policy tag added on 02 Sep 2005.

JA: To be continued. Jon Awbrey 03:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: This whole silly <esc>apade has apparently been cooked up by some people with nothing better to do but try and prove some kind of WP:POINT by cooking up a phoney "policy" of their own devising, perhaps just to see if they could trump up a groundswell of seeming consensus to insert a self-contradictory virus into the heart of Wikipedia. And they almost got away with it because nobody was really paying them much Attn. Jon Awbrey 03:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Would somebody please advise me on how you go about posting a "Project For Deletion" notice on WP:NBD? Gratia in futuro, Jon Awbrey 04:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That kind of thing goes to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. I'm not sure that it needs deleting, though. Jkelly 04:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Thanks. I can only spend so much time here — doctor's orders — but when I get back this way I'll see if I still care. Jon Awbrey 04:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey: I think you need to read WP:POINT more carefully. You've incorrectly accused others of it, while at the same time your recent edit summary at no binding descisions is a textbook violation of WP:POINT. Oops!

I'd also suggest you contact all those shady characters who were cooking up this particular policy, and figure out who they are. Imagine if they actually infiltrated the ranks of the administrators, or worse, even made it to arbcom somehow? They must be stopped! <very very very innocent look> Kim Bruning 09:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I have made no accusations — I have merely described certain appearances. That is the force of the word apparently that I used in my description of events that have transpired. But please do tell me what you personally or even authoritatively consider the WP community bound or unbound to do as of this moment in time, as I am having trouble keeping up. Thanks, Jon Awbrey 12:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm out of patience with your antics now. I've given you enough leads for you to ask around, talk with people and figure out what's really happening. It's not my problem if you ignore them, it's not my job to spoon-feed you.

Now it's up to you. Talk with some of the people who wrote the non-binding descisions page, and figure out who they were and are, and what they were doing there. You can find some of their names on the talk page. I'm not mad at you, just tired of your current state of aggressive willful ignorance. Do feel free to come back after you've done your followup, I'll gladly answer further questions. Kim Bruning 15:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note that the NBD policy is that decisions are open to consideration and reversal at a later date; it does not mean that there are not currently binding, active decisions. —Centrx→talk • 16:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Excuse me, KB, yes, I'm still learning, but what I'm learning as I begin to look around disconcerts me greatly. I will continue to assume good faith, until the evidence of common sense to the contrary overturns that humanly fallible presumption of innocence. But the evidence, sad to say, is mounting that somebody or other is almost quasi-deliberately trying to reductio the WP system to an absurdum. As I take that very seriously, I hope that you will, too. Jon Awbrey 16:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Thank you, KB, for your kind offer to answer further questions. I do have some other work to do now, but I will gather my uncertainties together and have a few questions for you later in the day. Jon Awbrey 17:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case you're going crazy. :-/ You're actually finding the older wikipedia rules, and you're comparing them to a number of changes only a small group of users want. Kim Bruning 17:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC) <- Darn, was still editing this when wiki went down. Apologies. Kim Bruning 20:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Participants in these proceedings are admonished, er, encouraged to consider the consensus meaning of the word consensus. It most definitely does not mean that 2 or 3 people have agreed on something over a half hour interval of time. If folks do not get some respect for honest diversity of opinion, then this project is doomed. Jon Awbrey 20:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that'd be great! :-) Kim Bruning 20:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This is becoming silly. What is going on? Is this just [{WP:POINT]]? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: I'm going tp break for the day now — when it gets like this there's nothing to be done for it. But the basic issues are quite serious, and I for one have <already> stated them several times </already>:

1. There is a significant difference between a policy and a principle. Changing from one to the other is not just another "grammatical tweaking", and thus demands a strong consensus, of a character that the locals hereabouts today can be reasonably certain would not and should not be overturned on appeal to the whole community, in and out of Wikipedia.
2. There is a significant meaning to the word consensus that is not being observed, much less respected.

JA: And you can look it up. Even a non-bound reference like WP still preserves some of the common sense of these words, though I cannot say if the senses in question will survive for a year, much less a hundred. Keep yer fingers crossed, I know I will. Jon Awbrey 21:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikis are collaborative editing tools that tend towards consensus over time, if you're willing to work with them the way they're intended. People are using the wiki to do such collaborative editing now, so reverting is not the right plan at this point in time. People will come in and change things if it's not right right away. Kim Bruning 21:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:V is a very important page, though. It is perhaps more important for this page to reflect the current consensus at all times than any other (possibly with the exception of WP:NPOV). Tending to consensus over time is not good enough for it: it must be as close as we can possibly make it right now.

That said, I don't see a consensus against these changes, and I see the beginnings of a consensus for them. I suspect there are a lot of people like me who have been watching these discussions and letting a conclusion be reached before speaking their mind. And although I didn't support it before, I certainly feel that the change being discussed (i.e. the substition of "the principles upon which these three policies are based" for "these three policies") are probably beneficial. JulesH 07:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Find a method for finding consensus (on a wiki) that is superior to the wiki-process in speed, efficiency and continued real-time-accuracy. If you can sell your idea, perhaps we shall fund your research. Kim Bruning 15:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Some talk going on at Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#References_in_the_lead_section. Any contributions would be appreciated. I'm also copying here a few suggestions I made there, so that people can comment here. The key point is that: the lead section will (by design) repeat stuff covered later in the article. The question is how best to handle references for repeated material like this.

• One proposal was: "(1) If the lead section summarises a point from the main text, and that point is referenced in the main text, then the lead section should link to this reference as well. (2) Conversely, if the lead section summarises a point that does not need to be referenced, the lead section should not reference it either. (3) If a point in the lead section is disputed, edited, or has a reference added, and there is a corresponding paragraph in the main text, then the main text should be similarly changed. (4) If a point in the main text is disputed, edited, or has a reference added, and this point is covered in the lead section, then the lead section should be similarly changed."

• A new point, that I haven't raised at Wikipedia:Lead section, is whether the same reference is always appropriate for the lead section compared to the same point later in the article. In some cases, a reference used to justify a complex piece of wording might make no sense when used for a short sentence in the lead section that summarised the issue. It might even confuse the reader. In some cases, the change in style from detailed (main article) to summary-style (lead section) may justify using a different reference.

• Another point I raised was that because of the way the lead section could/should be used as a stand-alone summary of the main article, it could make sense for the references for the lead section (often only one or two) to appear directly below the lead section, making clear that this is a distinct, summary section.

Anyone agree with any of this? Carcharoth 22:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggested Carchroth come here with this, rather than propose it on WP:LEAD. In essence, he wants lead sections to be free of references, or free of references that are repeated later in the article; and if references are used in the lead, he wants a separate References section for them directly under the lead. I oppose this, because the lead section, in my view, should be referenced in exactly the same way as any other section. It's part of the article: that it should sum up the contents of the article doesn't make it a thing apart. In addition, we want to encourage referencing, not make it even more complicated by specifying that lead sections have to be treated differently. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

To be more precise, I initially (a few months ago) wanted lead sections to be free of references. I now realise this is probably not workable (though several editors did agree with me). What I want now is clear consensus and guidelines on how to reference material that occurs in more than one location, such as material that is repeated in a summary-style section (whether a lead section of an article or a summary section within an article where the original section was spun off to form a new article) and in a more detailed section elsewhere. The idea of having a separate "lead section references section" is only an idea, not something I am paticularly proposing. Carcharoth 01:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I concur with SlimVirgin on this issue. We have some articles with multiple References sections already, and they are muddled and rather confusing. We should not be encouraging such edits. --Coolcaesar 23:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that synchronizing the references in the lead and body would be more work, and inevitably break down. If a lead truly is a summary of the article body, then it makes more sense to me to cite references supporting specific facts in the body, and leave the lead uncluttered. Don't repeat the references just as we don't repeat the same text verbatim in the lead and body. Of course this is dependent on the article's writing style and length, and adding this to the guidelines seems like over-specification to me. —Michael Z. 2006-08-19 00:17 Z

This is similar to what I have tried before. I too feel that a well-written lead section, one that does a good job of summarising an article, has its flow spoilt by references. However, this invariably ends up with someone coming along, reading the lead section, and slapping a "citation needed" tag on a key sentence. They also, invariably, fail to realise that if they had read the whole article, they would have found the reference they were looking for. The thing about synchronising between lead and the main text is similar to the problems that already exist concerning synchronising between summary sections and daughter articles. In fact, it is an identical problem, though in that case the summary text and the detailed text are on different pages, rather than different places on the same page.

A good example is Isaac Newton where there are five biographical daughter articles at Template:IsaacNewtonSegments. Compare Isaac_Newton#Religious_views with Isaac Newton's religious views. Both have the quote "Gravity explains the motions of the planets...", but only the main article gives a source for the quote. The daughter article has a "citation needed" tag on that quote. A classic case of a lack of synchronisation between parent and daughter articles. The Isaac Newton lead section is also an interesting example. There are two references given, but there are many other statements in that lead section that I would want to see supporting citations for. Although I personally know to look further down in the article to find more details and the relevant citations, it seems the consensus is that we cannot assume that of our readers, and lead sections need to be littered with references to support the key overview statements that the lead sections (by design) are meant to be providing. Does that example make my concerns any clearer, and can anyone suggest the best way to approach all this? Carcharoth 01:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Citation needed" tags are a typographical pox which should be removed mercilessly, with or without the statements they label, as warranted by the circumstances. Daughter articles are separate articles—occasionally the parent can get updated or vice versa, but differences are nothing to lose sleep about, especially if both are well referenced so they don't become contradictory due to speculation or hearsay.

Regarding citations in the introduction: what happens when two paragraphs with six references are summarized by one intro sentence? Slap six redundant numbers on one sentence? Mandate a notes section so that an extra note can cite all six references? Article intros would be a mess, or just following the references will require a set of index cards: better to keep introductions spare.

Just keep it simple, and it will look fine and read well. —Michael Z. 2006-08-19 05:34 Z

I agree. With the proviso that there should be some way of making it clearer to the reader (and the editor asking for citations) that if they want more details (either just more details full stop, or details of references), then they should read the main text of the article. At the moment, any well-written lead section without any references is in danger of some people coming along and slapping "citation needed" tags all over it, even for stuff that is clearly summarising what appears later in the article. I really don't know what to do about this. Carcharoth 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: What you are describing here is commonly called an abstract. You can refer to standard style sheets and instructions to authors for the customary standards and practices that are used in writing abstracts. Jon Awbrey 02:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, curently, in Wikipedia, there is Wikipedia:Lead section to help guide people writing abstracts. As I've said above, this is not currently that helpful on whether to reference things twice, and how to reference information-dense lead sections. External style guides seem to differ between having references in the abstracts to having no references. So that doesn't really help. Carcharoth 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd treat the "lead section" referencing and the "summary/sub article" referencing somewhat separate when discussing this:

• For "summary/sub article" referencing, Wikipedia:Avoid self references plays an important role (basically every article should be stand-alone for its external references):
  • See, for instance, this prior discussion copied from Village pump (policy): Wikipedia as its own source
  • Some of this is already covered in the Wikipedia:Summary style guideline:
    • Wikipedia:Summary style#Keeping summary articles and detailed articles synchronised: "Sometimes editors will add details to a summary without adding those facts to the more detailed article. These need to be copied to the appropriate places. In other cases, the detailed article may grow considerably in scope, and the summary needs to be re-written to do it justice. These problems may be tagged with {{Sync}}." (this can be used for synchronising references too of course)
    • Wikipedia:Summary style#Citations and external links: Currently recommends to give detailed references (which I suppose to be "point by point" references) in the subarticles, and general references in the main article. For the "Isaac Newton" series example that could mean, for instance, that a detailed "gravity" reference (possibly linking to a monography on gravity and planets) should go in the subarticle in the first place. As the "main" article has surely a lot of references in the sense of biographies of Newton, and books giving an overview of his scientific realisations, there's no doubt that this can be considered "referenced" in the main article, whatever citation technique is used in that "main" article.

This is interesting. a similar guideline would seem to make sense for the lead section of an article and the main article. Use general references for the lead section, and use detailed references for the main article. That might be a very good solution for information-dense lead sections. I will take this idea back to Wikipedia:Lead section and see what happens. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• For "lead section" referencing: Whatever citation technique is used, references can be re-used in the same article: Harvard references allow this, and for numbered footnotes the "ref" tag can be given a name, and then re-used lower in the article. I'd always give the reference in the body of the article in the first place: if the "summary" given in the lead section is questionable for whatever reason the key references can be brought up to that lead section too, so that both the lead section and the sub-sections are referenced with the same references. --Francis Schonken 06:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This reuse of references would seem to be best for controversial statements included in the lead section. The guideline currently states that controversial issues should be included in the lead section, and it would make sense to reuse the detailed references from the main article. Carcharoth 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

From a purely stylistic standpoint, I'd prefer not to see references in article summaries. They're usually incredibly information-dense, and if such a rule were applied strictly on an article with multiple sources, you'd probably end up with a header that looked[1] like this[2] with footnotes every few words[3]. That's ugly. From a practical standpoint, I don't see any need for them. There's no need to refer to a source twice, even if the information from it is used multiple times. Also, I would contend that this clearly isn't a verifiability issue: as long the reference is on the page, the information is verifiable. I think this discussion was in the right place to start with. JulesH 07:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the proposal to use general references (eg. a reference to a biography of a famous person) for information-dense lead sections will avoid too much clutter, and will satisfy those people that go around slapping "citation needed" on lead sections. This also avoids the repetition of references, as the detailed section later in the article should use specific page references, or specific quoted references. Apologies if you felt this was the wrong place for the discussion, but the comments received have really helped me formulate a set of proposals to take back to Wikipedia:Lead section, where the guidelines are not specific enough about this sort of thing. Carcharoth 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Re. "place of discussion": note that some related discussion is currently ongoing about the lead section of list pages at wikipedia talk:list guideline.

I think that "density of references in the intro" also depends on topic: the major distinction being probably between "recent" topics and topics that are "well-established in literature":

• The lead section of the Antonio Vivaldi article mentions that he's a composer... any source on Vivaldi (including the biographies used as reference for that article) would mention or imply he's a composer. Don't clutter the lead section with references of the obvious (the info is included in any of the given references).
• The lead section of 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict mentions, for instance, "Both sides claimed victory after the ceasefire", followed by references. Well, yes, such articles immediately following on recent events are probably not the ones that would be most exemplary from the stylistic viewpoint. That we have them at all, and that they try to give a fair representation of the events is paramount here I suppose.

This can be seen in the light of the general principle that the more exceptional the claims that are made, the better sourcing they require. This may lead to use of references in lead sections for events that are generally not very well covered in highest quality (peer reviewed, taking account of all primary sources, etc.) sources. But this may not lead to the conclusion that all lead sections need to be cluttered with external references for the info that is referenced further on in the article, and generally non-contentious. --Francis Schonken 08:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Still another consideration, only for articles that have well-established sources, and I'll use the Vivaldi article as example:

• If you want to add "Vivaldi composed hundreds of concertos and dozens of operas" to the lead section of that article, that doesn't really need references in the intro: the body goes in detail about that, there's nothing contentious about it etc...
• If you want to add "There is considerable discussion regarding how serious Vivaldi was about his priesthood", then you'd need to go ^[1][2][3]... etc. in the lead section. Well, the fact that extensive references would be needed about a contention, is maybe an indication that you want to go too much in detail in the intro. Vivaldi is known as a composer primarily. The contentious details about his priesthood career are too secondary to elaborate in the intro. I think this would often automatically reduce the number of references needed in the intro. --Francis Schonken 10:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good examples. Non-controversial versus controversial. Well-established fact versus obscure detail. I agree that obscure details are often not appropriate for the lead section, but the current guidelines do say that controversial issues shouldn't be omitted from the lead section just because they are controversial. Maybe the guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead section should clearly state that obscure details, even if controversial, should not be included in the lead section. Carcharoth 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is contentious doesn't mean it's obscure. Contentious material often has to go into the lead because it may be notable, or may even be the most notable thing about the person or topic, and it has to be referenced. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said that contentious things were obscure. I effectively said that some controversial things may be obscure. I agree that notable controversies need to go in the lead section. In fact, I said this further down the page three hours before you wrote the above. Carcharoth 23:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't confuse "controversy" with "notable". Some people think every "controversy" is by definition "notable". The Lead section guideline doesn't: "[...] including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any" (my bolding)

IMHO, notable enough for a lead section (except for "ongoing events" as mentioned above) would mean that there is specific overview literature on the controversy (that is literature that is more than primary sources each only explaining their own stance in the controversy). Which would limit the references that need to be given in the intro, if any. Look for instance at the third paragraph of the Plato article intro:

[...] How much of the content and argument of any given dialogue is Socrates' point of view, and how much of it is Plato's, is heavily disputed, since Socrates himself did not write anything; this is often referred to as the "Socratic problem". [...]

Again, no separate external references needed in the intro,

1. The contentious area is known well enough to be covered by all of the general references on Plato, listed in the Plato article;
2. There's a sub-article, specifically devoted to the controversy, which of course has (or should have) more specific references. --Francis Schonken 11:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely with the "notable" inclusion criteria for controversies mentioned in a lead section, and the concept of overview literature seems very relevant for referencing summary-style sections (whether in articles or as the lead section of an article). What to do, though, where overview literature doesn't exist? Does this mean that writing a summary section is original sysnthesis, and is this original research?

As for the Plato example, are you saying that a link to another Wikipedia article is as good as a reference? ...

No, I didn't say that, please don't deform my words. --Francis Schonken 12:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologise if I misunderstood you. Carcharoth 23:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

... That seems like a dangerously slippery slope. A link to another Wikipedia article can provide more information, but each article should also be as self-contained as possible. There is always a tension between these two issues. Where should the line be drawn?

And looking in more detail at the Plato lead section, I see it has no references. Taking one factoid at random, the issue of Plato's real name being thought to be Aristocles, I see that even the main article (Biography section) doesn't provide a reference. The implication seems to be that you can find this in any reasonable book about Plato. So I go to the reference list at the end, but now I am faced with the problem of deciding which book to turn to. All this would have been solved with a well-sourced reference at the first mention of Aristocles outside the lead section, and with a general reference to an authoritative book on Plato in the lead section.

Sticking with names for a moment, I wanted to follow up the mention of the names of Plato's parents, and see where that information is from. As Ariston (Athenian) and Perictione are not referenced in the Plato article, I followed the links and found two extremely stubby articles with the same reference. Surely these stubby articles are serving as footnotes and references for the Plato article, and should be merged with the Plato article, rather than existing as separate articles? Carcharoth 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There is considerable discussion regarding how serious Vivaldi was about his priesthood", then you'd need to go [1][2][3]... etc.

Oh, I hope not!

1. Several sources shouldn't be used to build an argument in the summary introduction.
2. That there is discussion is a single fact. Citing several contradictory sources doesn't support that fact—it's more like original research trying to build a case (cite, don't demonstrate). Citing one source about the discussion supports the fact.
3. The point of a notes format is that one note can cite three sources. Three numbers in a row shouldn't normally be used, and certainly not in a summary introduction.
4. This sentence is probably a summary of a larger subject, which is elucidated in a paragraph or section having have its own detailed references supporting specific facts. There's no reason to place redundant citations where those facts aren't mentioned.

—Michael Z. 2006-08-19 14:15 Z

Oh, you didn't read what I wrote after the quote you pasted here? Apart from your point 3 (which isn't the habit at Wikipedia, nor anywhere implied that it should be) this is exactly what I meant. --Francis Schonken 14:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops. There's a point where I started scanning. Must make coffee.... —Michael Z. 2006-08-19 14:46 Z

A general query now. I want to summarise the above discussion (and any further discussion that takes place) at Wikipedia:Lead section. Is the appropriate thing to link from there and write a summary, or should I copy, or even move, this discussion there? Carcharoth 11:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've proposed guidelines on how to deal with references in the lead section at Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#Further_discussion_of_references_in_the_lead_section. Note that there is the beginnings of a new idea to condense referencing in lead sections by only having a reference at the end of each paragraph, or a note at the end of each paragraph summarising the references for that paragraph. This would dramatically improve readability in lead sections where references are used throughout a paragraph. It would be appreciated if people who took part in this discussion could comment over there on what they think about these proposals. Thanks. Carcharoth 11:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Carcharoth, this is the place to discuss the need for references, not WP:LEAD. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said back at Wikipedia talk:Lead section, at least one editor here disagrees with you. Jules H above said "Also, I would contend that this clearly isn't a verifiability issue: as long the reference is on the page, the information is verifiable. I think this discussion was in the right place to start with." He has clearly understood that I am not discussing the need for references, merely the reference style, reference location and whether references should be duplicated. You have consistently misrepresented my position as "not wanting references", and responded with a "but we need references". My position is that I agree that references are needed in the lead section, but I am still looking for guidelines on how to do this in a suitable way. Writing a good lead section is a skill, and there need to be guidelines on the level and style of referencing needed in the lead section. I am also more than slightly worried by the attitude I have seen of "provide a reference if an editor disputes what you say". A good editor should fully reference what they write regardless of whether anyone disputes it. Though in practice this is sometimes hard to do consistently. Carcharoth 23:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: This has gotten really silly. There is simply no point to creating categorical imperative style sheets that dictate every last detail of how to write an abstract. What few guidelines make sense are already established in the wider world of scholarship, and if they do not hold your hand through the whole process, it's because nobody in the real world perceives any real need for that. The established guidelines in the real world are flexible because "one size does not fit all", and never will. Jon Awbrey 14:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Fast learner. :-) Kim Bruning 15:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I may have gone overboard with detailed guidelines, but can I plead for some sort of guide on how to deal with references in a lead section. I am asking questions and trying to provide some ideas of my own, and what I am getting is a lot of discussion, some intransigent opposition, and a lot of misunderstanding. All I'm asking for is some sort of brief, flexible guideline that we can all agree on. A lot of editing on Wikipedia is copying what other people do. And bad practice spreads quickly. If people see lead sections either with no references, or with excessive amounts of references, they will assume that is the way things are done around here, and will copy it. If there are reasons why things are done differently in different articles, that should be made clearer. Carcharoth 23:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: The WikiPuniversity course, Teaching Grandma To Suck Eggs 101, has been cancelled due to lack of chickens. Jon Awbrey 16:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, we've been teaching grandmothers to suck eggs since 2001. ;-) Kim Bruning 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean we have been teaching them to sukc eggs? Grace Note 03:19, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Partly related to the stuff about referencing things in the lead section, should we be worried if an article is inconsistent about where it references something? I am talking here about cases where something is mentioned both in the lead section and later in the article. There seem to be three different "styles":

1. Referenced in the main body of the article, but not in the lead section
2. Referenced in the lead section but not in the main body of the article
3. Referenced in both lead section and the main body of the article

Style 2 seems to arise when a "citation needed" tag gets slapped on a sentence in a lead section where the particular fact either is not referenced in the main article, or has been added to the lead section but not the main body of the article (a synchronisation problem). It is also consistent with referencing at the first appearance of something, rather than waiting until it appears in the main body of the article. Referencing in both locations (style 3) is consistent with enabling the lead section to be a stand-alone section. I find this situation confusing. I think this might be best discussed at Wikipedia:Cite sources, but wanted to ask here which style best aids verifiability. Carcharoth 11:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Adding a couple of subheads for browser-friendly continuation of several previous discussions. Jon Awbrey 17:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: Let me begin by observing that we already have at minimum a triple distinction — Policies, Guidelines, and Projects (that propose to add or to amend P's and G's) — that has to be conveyed to users, and this is proving to be bewildering enough for all concerned. The proposal to toss yet another "term of art" — Principles — into the mix is thus very inadvisable on that ground alone. Jon Awbrey 18:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

JA: One of the evident differences between a genuine policy and mere principle, enscounced in common sense and lexica alike, is that a policy is an actionable principle, one on which agents are actually prepared to act — very analogous if not identical to Bain's rule that defines a belief as "that on which a man [sic] is prepared to act". Jon Awbrey 18:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)