User:Cessaune/Unfinished Ideas

MOS:LEADCITE unclear[edit]

Mos lead

Clutter. For example, citing in the lead disrputs the flow/makes it less visually appealing.
Redundancy. For example, the article is already being cited below, therefore, it is unnecessary to cite in the lead.

Why I don't think these are valid reasons:

W

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. I would add this sentence: The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Why?

I feel like there is an arbitrary dislike of citations in the lead. At the end of the day, Space4T never answered my question in the previous discussion: give me a single reason why a reader will benefit from the current state of the lead as opposed to the proposed one. Not a single dissenting vote has described why adding links is detrimental. Not one. Claims of SEAOFBLUE, claims that it would be detrimental (without actually explaining why), claims that it would create a blue sea, but no claims that address why adding the ten links is a negative. I don't understand the reasoning, and no one will explain it to me in a way .

You are not required to cite sources in a talk page discussion. But if you can cite a source in support of your view, and your opponents can't or don't, you are likely to win the argument. Maproom (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

The exception being talk pages of articles about living persons, if the material is possibly negative or controversial, you must have a good source. You can't just say "Should we mention that Smith is a convicted embezzler?" or even "Should we mention that Smith is a convicted embezzler, as the Akron Daily News says?", it has to be like "Should we mention that Smith is a convicted embezzler, as the Akron Daily News says, here: [link]". And the source has to be reliable/notable enough to use in the article. And even then you should be as circumspect as possible. "Should we use this source [here] and include the allegation made there?" would be much preferable. WP:BLP applies to all pages in the Wikipedia. Herostratus (talk) 22:13, 8 April 2023 (UTC)