I reverted it back because I preferred the original version before Rod Ball's edits.  I asked if anyone else agreed with Rod Ball on this issue - having gotten no response, I assumed that other people either didn't care, or like me preferred the original.  In addition, I believe that Pjacobi already reverted these particular edits once.

 So I'll ask again - does anybody agree with Rod Ball on this issue, and actually prefer his version?  I like it the way it is now.  To make it less personal, do people like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox&oldid;=79349924 or http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bell%27s_spaceship_paradox&oldid;=79587575

 I think that "a family of paradoxes" is more technically accurate, if you re-read the literature section you'll see why Hillman (the originator of this wording) described them this way.  Different authors have analyzed slightly different situations using different means.

 I also think accelerated rods are quite relevant and related (again, I borrowed this from Hillman, though I added the wiki-link to Born rigid motion).  Note that we are currently arguing accelerated motion with Rod Ball.  I would say that the topic is therfore closely related, though not identical.  That's just what the intro says.  Strings and spaceships share much of the same physics as rods and spaceships, in the final analysis.  It's fundamentally about distance.

 I think both versions contain equivalent information in explaining why the paradox, originated by Dewan and Beran, is named after Bell.