Talk:Lead paragraph

Tutorial text in lead

In the (lead paragraph)² :) was a tutorial passage:

The "lead" immediately grabs the attention of the reader and must be at least three sentences long. It also needs to directly relate to the body of the article.

With some sources that might be used in a section about tutorial advice regarding lead paragraphs. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph to Lede paragraph

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

• Support because lede is less confusing, unlike 'lead' which has several meanings, from "leader" to "the metal lead" etc. "Lede" is from US english and is more widely used. Pass a Method talk 10:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: I was almost going to support this to avoid ambiguity (in agreement with Pass a Method), until I realized I don't like the spelling (lede) and would continue to use "lead" (which when followed by a word like "paragraph", I believe, is unambiguous). If the article is moved, there should be a redirect from "Lead paragraph".--Miniapolis (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Lede" is just a variant spelling of "Lead". There is no reason to invest in a multiplicity of spellings. I'm sure some people use "lede" to shamelessly show-off their knowledge of obscure jargon :-) Even the WP guideline on lead paragraphs uses the spelling "lead", and - even tho WP is not a source - that section has been heavily scrutinized for many years, so its spelling is indicative of a broad consensus. The encyclopedia should be promoting clarity, not compounding confusion. --Noleander (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose "Lead paragraph" is not at all confusing or ambiguous. I don't think anyone seeing it will think it concerns the metal or anything else. The usage "lede", as the article says, is used as shorthand for the whole of "lead paragraph", so "lede paragraph" would be wrong, and "lede" on its own far more likely to confuse as it's not widely recognised. (and I hope you don't mind but I've added your signature after the question, as only that should appear on the RfC page, both for length and to keep the question there neutral).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Lede is flatly the wrong word, 'lede' is only used in news stories, and only then in America. Even in America, it's not used in essays or any other context other than news.Teapeat (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• OpposeThe spelling 'lede' was originally used in some printing circles to avoid confusion with the metal 'lead' which was used in metal type and the hot metal printing process. It was first introduced around 1965 and is now obsolescent since these processes are no longer in widespread use. It is not our job to invent or promote new words.Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead paragraph to Lede

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

• Support to avoid ambiguity. Lead has several meanigs whereas Lede has only one meaning. his ambiguity would become confusing in a sentence such "The lead says he lead a group of individuals". The word "lede" would be very useful in such a sentence. Pass a Method talk 18:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose because in my view, "lead" in the context of "lead paragraph" is unambiguous.--Miniapolis (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• oppose as per my comments above.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - per my comments above. --Noleander (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should use the most common name and as pointed out above already, "lede" might be less ambiguous (although I agree with Miniapolis that it isn't in this context), but is used much less often than "lead" is. Also, WP:LEAD has a footnote (#1) that explains why "lede" is actually not the correct way if one refers to all lead sections and not just news article ones. Regards SoWhy 18:59, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason as before.Teapeat (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as I have never seen the spelling 'lede' before. Totally confusing. _{Senator2029 | talk | contributions} 22:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Senator2029 (talk · contribs) and others.—Biosketch (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• OpposeThe spelling 'lede' was originally used in some printing circles to avoid confusion with the metal 'lead' which was used in metal type and the hot metal printing process. It was first introduced around 1965 and is now obsolescent since these processes are no longer in widespread use. It is not our job to invent or promote new words.Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:ENGVAR - "...the English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language." - "Lede" is American, oddly spelled and old-fashioned - virtually deprecated - whereas "Lead" is understood by everyone - Brits, Americans, Aussies, Canadians, and non-English speakers with basic English. Also seems pointless to expect such a change: If it ain't broken, don't fix it! Ma®©usBritish ^[talk] 09:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - But I disagree with MarcusBritish's comment. "Lede" isn't American. It's just a misspelling in any variety of English. Angr (talk) 17:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I understand the word lede, it is relatively obscure jargon. Texts apart from pure journalism can have lead paragraphs, but only print journalism can have ledes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME. --FormerIP (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hidden text

"Lede is the correct spelling for this word; lead is not", it says invisibly in the markup, very near the top. Which just isn't true, as anyone can see by comparing the spelling of the article title with that of the first sentence. Indeed, both spellings should be in the lead/lede, and bolded. Rothorpe (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC) —Done. Rothorpe (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

some doubt that 'lede' is really the spelling in journalism

I came across this interesting blog post:

http://howardowens.com/2011/09/18/lede-vs-lead/

The author's (decently substantiated) conclusion is that "journalists working in the linotype era never spelled it 'lede.' It was always 'lead,' as in 'news lead.' It wasn't until linotype was disappearing from newsrooms across the nation (late 1970s and into the 1980s), that we start seeing the spelling 'lede.'" —Steve Summit (talk) 14:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a blog post. That's not a WP:RS. And plenty of commenters there disagree with it.

Personally, I worked at a newspaper in the mid-70s, but though I heard the word a lot I don't think I ever saw it written down. Jeh (talk) 22:38, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Try these quotes: 1) " A strong lead (called a lede in the business) that grabs the reader and sets the scene" (Rao, 2014); 2) " Even if you both like the first lede, have the reporter try a different approach." (Kanigel, 2011); 3) "Your lead (also spelled "lede" to differentiate it from the hot metal lead used by old printing presses) is the key." (Kolodzy, 2006). 4) " Lead/Lede: a news story's initial sentence or paragraph that summarizes its main point." (Zelizer, 2010). 5) "What you learn the first day of journalism school is that reporters are in a constant search for the “lede,” which is the first twenty five words of the article or onair story. It summarizes the article." (Craig, 2013) Rjensen (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree people constantly spelling it this way on the talk pages here then referring to this article to justify it..Wikipedia is not a newspaper it`s an encyclopedia..there is a reason this spelling is in online dictionaries not print..it probably got started by someone who literally couldn`t spell lead and stuck as a joke..it`s a modern corruption of the English language..no one with an education would spell it like that..66.177.244.25 (talk) 12:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Conjecture all you like, but that's just a terrific example of OR. Note that even the blog post that started this pointless digression

doesn't "doubt that 'lede' is really the spelling in journalism". Only that that spelling is a little more recent than the linotype era. It says the usage goes back to "late 1970s", so Wikipedia's article here is hardly to blame, not that any "blame" is deserved anyway. I don't think anybody ever claimed that "lede" was "the" one and only spelling in journalism either. And, really, if people want to spell it that way on talk pages, that is their own business. Jeh (talk) 14:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

it`s improper 66.177.244.25 (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for finally changing this..it was getting old reading articles written by people who can`t spell..not that I`m some kind of literary genius but this was so obvious it shouldn't have even been an issue. The next thing needs to be the constant confusing between singular and plural..the Rolling Stones are a band not is a band2600:1702:2340:9470:8C14:5793:63AD:BE6E (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Opening sentence

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lead paragraph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120219122848/http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20001128 to http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20001128

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Lede

"The usual spelling in American journalism is lede.[2]"

The cited source explains the reason for the unusual spelling, but it does not in any way indicate that it's used more in America than anywhere else, nor does it say that the spelling is "the" usual spelling; in fact, it's used only in specific usages in the journalism industry, butthe more conventional "lead" is also used, and "lede" is certainly not THE usual spelling. In ordinary use, (and commonly in American journalistic circles), the conventional spelling "lead" is used. I will revise unless some other information is presented here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

My take is that when these words are used to mark up copy they are spelled "lede" and "graf" to avoid confusion and convey that they are being used in a meta way. --Kbk (talk) 00:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Lede is to avoid confusion with the printing press type formerly made from the metal lead or the related typographical term leading Pass a Method talk 19:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Since there is a consensus between 3 people i will move it now. Pass a Method talk 19:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

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

'Lede' is incorrect but commonly used in journalism jargon. There are two reasons: 1) They can't spell and 2) the 'lede' is not the same as the 'lead' paragraph. The lead paragraph contains who, what, when, and where, and the 'lede' contains a lame joke or an ironic comment. The reason given, to distinguish the paragraph from the type, never made sense, and especially doesn't make sense when lead type isn't used any more. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 15:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Eric

Making a claim not supported with anything but primary sources isn't within Wikipedia standards. If this is true, reference it with secondary source please.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have my doubts lede was ever a historical replacement for 'lead paragraph.' I would think, to include this non-standard spelling, it should be easily found and referenced in an old copy of the AP Stylebook. If that can't be done, I wonder if the term should be here at all. The claim that the non-standard spelling was used to distinguish it from lead, used in typesetting, is something I can't find in any pre-1970 typesetting manual, or journalists dictionary. A quick check of Wolfram-Alpha also doesn't find any use of that spelling for that meaning in historical context. In 1940, for example, a time when printing was primarily lead based, it's not there. Considering the source of this "historical" word in this article is a single, non-authored article, what am I missing? Why is the term presented as a suitable replacement when the reference is so poor? Lexlex (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

According to [ http://grammarist.com/usage/lead-lede/ ]: "Long ago the noun lede was an alternative spelling of lead, but now lede is mainly journalism jargon for the introductory portion of a news story—or what might be called the lead portion of the news story. Strictly speaking, the lede is the first sentence or short portion of an article that gives the gist of the story and contains the most important points readers need to know." Also see [ http://howardowens.com/lede-vs-lead/ ], [ http://lisawaananen.com/noted/2014/09/12/lead-vs-lede-and-tradition-vs-substance/ ], [ https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2012/10/lede-time.html ], and [ https://thebettereditor.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/should-we-bury-this-lede/ ] --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Having actually paid attention in school, it`s difficult for me to believe it got started in any other way but with someone who couldn`t spell. 2600:1702:2340:9470:2C69:3A66:F84C:ACCC (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Citing someone's opinion in a recently published document saying "lede" was a historical spelling doesn't prove the history. Actual, verifiable historical references prove the spelling "lede" was just never used: these would be press style guides and journalism text books from the time period of lead type use. This has been extensively researched and it's just not there—like, not at all. This is ridiculously over-cited within this article to prove this and yet every few months a new editor comes along trying to state it as fact and/or cite a recent reference but can't provide any historical reference. Unless someone can come up with something—anything!— from the time period in question (e.g. 1920's through 1970's) showing "lede" to be used by anyone in press/journalism industry it remains just this weird claim that keeps getting repeated with no basis in historical fact. Lexlex (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Zekelayla: Please provide your historical source for the spelling as a reference. Attempting to cite a current, offline dictionary as counter claim to extensively cited claims as you've done here doesn't do anything to prove the historical accuracy of the claim. Would love it if you can find one, but we haven't been able to so far despite years of looking. A recent publication making the claim with no historical backup unfortunately doesn't prove anything. (Like, where's the actual proof of its use?) Please see extensive discussion above.Lexlex (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lexlex: OED quotes an example from 1951: "1951 Pampa (Texas) Daily News 21 June 17/2 Lead (Lede)—Opening of a news story, ordinarily summarizing the rest of it." I must say, your aversion to using the Oxford English Dictionary as a reliable source is idiosyncratic and against wikipedia policy. Hence I will revert my edits. Happy to continue the discussion on here. Zekelayla (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Zekelayla: Wanting see the actual cite of its use and not a third party/proxy claim really isn't much of an ask—especially when it would be straightforward to cite (even the OED cites, as you've shown), but no one could see it. But the thing is—they did— and you just gave details so you're almost there. With what you gave me above, I was able to find this link which totally satisfies proof of its use historically. Congratulations! Now, would you like to enter the historical cite of its use or should I? Big moment! Lexlex (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lexlex: I'm all for adding that reference if you want to do the honors. However, the OED (or other equivalent lexicographer) judgement is important here, and should stay in. This is in line with wikipedia's policies in favor of secondary sources. Of course my oblique reference to 1951 would be superseded by a direct citation like you're proposing. Zekelayla (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Zekelayla:Add OED or whatever you wish, my earlier RV was primarily because your OED cite was/is malformed and not in the correct place(s). Please see WP:Cite for help and consider using one of these automated tools that can do it for you (e.g. with just an ISBN or link). I will adjust them later if you don't get to it.Lexlex (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

@Lexlex: yeah I struggled to figure out how to generate a URL for an article behind the paywall. have done so now. Zekelayla (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

It`s spelled lead..someboby who literally wasn`t paying attention in the 4th grade misspelled it and for some strange unknown reason...for the life of me in our educated enlightened society of literate English speaking readers and writers..I can`t imagine why..it stuck..or they left it in as a joke..I`m guessing the latter Anonymous8206 (talk) 23:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)