I think you may be starting to learn some physics, POM.  That introduction may be an improvement.  I am not sure why we were both looking at the same page in Messiah at the same time. 

 I agree that we should end up with a different title, but I started with this one to balance "Interpretation of quantum mechanics", because a poor fit between a theory and its approximation belongs to the approximation and not to the theory.  As I said, somewhere, we should talk about the history of when physicists still thought classically and talk about physics from a contemporary point of view.  I want this article to permanently do the latter but also at present to lead people away from seeing viewpoints as contemporary, when they are not. 

 Of course there must be current philosophical discussion of physics, but I can't see how that can be interesting until we already know enough physics to understand entanglement and quantum computing.  From what I am reading in Physics Today, that will not reach an encyclopedia soon. 

 If I find some historical evidence, I would like to include that Einstein's failure to "understand" quantum mechanics was caused by people putting things too conservatively for him to see the leap.  I don't remember much talk about the "interpretation of curved space".  He simply said that was how it is and the experiments confirmed it.  There was no putting it softly to keep from disturbing people.