` :::::::: Since I can't find anything at else metaphorical in the MoS, and since guidelines are generally written plainly, I dispute that your interpretation is correct.  However, at this point, we are obviously not going to get any further on this point, as to me it is plainly obvious that the guideline does not apply here, while to you it is plainly obvious that it does.  So we have a point of dispute.  For now, shall we continue on and see what else we agree or disagree on?    To me, your points 4-7 all say approximately the same thingall of them assert that, on Wikipedia, people use examples to explain things that may be unknown to the reader, and that further they do so in the lead.  I accept that there are, in fact, articles that do soyour sample articles are quite convincing in this regard.  However, I do not believe you are correct to say that this is a trend among may articles.  I pointed out three articles  (Political Parties, Couch, and Whaling) that do not use examples in places where they could.  Now, we can spend all day (or all week, or whatever) pulling up articles that do or do not use examples in the lead.  What I hope we can agree on is that neither of us could possibly establish that one or the other is the standard, without doing some sort of impossible numerical analysis of all Wikipedia articles.  Thus, I believe that neither one of us can say with certainty ``This is the way Wikipedia does it.``  Therefore, I argue that we should focus on what is best for this page and this lead.  Do you agree with this plan?  Or do you have some way to prove that this is a Standard that is broadly applicable to most Wikipedia pages (just citing more pages won't prove anything, since we'll just end up citing endlessly, with articles both with and without examples in the lead).   `