Genesis of the current edit war JJL started the current edit war when he seemingly ignored the years of consensus and the lengthy discussions that produced that consensus lead sentence as well as the warning on the talk page alerting him to that consensus with a trite and dismissive edit summary this is clearly advocacy death is a highly charged term here and not a medical one does an embryo die which ignored the hard work of dozens and dozens and dozens of editors over the years Lionelt noted the problem with JJL s edit lack of consensus and not respecting the genesis of the long standing lead and restored the long standing consensus lead sentence JJL ignored Lionelt and reverted Lionelt s reversion thereby restoring his disruptive edit although JJL incorrectly claimed in his edit summary that it was not a reversion MastCell removed the POV tag despite the bold warnings all over the page about the history of the lead sentence and its inclusion of the word death and despite Lionelt s mention of the lack of consensus falsely claiming that a single editor objected to the deletion and apparently MastCell considered it was good to have a POV tag when some editors wanted the word death removed but after the word death was removed without consensus it was suddenly a bad idea to have a POV tag Michael C Price restored the long standingconsensus lead sentence The article was then frozen for 3 days by Fastily The article was then semi protected by Andrew c Someone added a modifier to the word death JJL restored the long term consensus lead giving the rationale that the a potential change to the lead sentence to remove death was under discussion which was a good call NuclearWarfare removed the long standing consensus lead by removing the word death and substituting a reference to viability despite objections and a clear lack of any new consensus The talk page shows that there was no consensus for this controversial and contentious change Str1977 restored the long standing consensus lead which was and still is the most recent consensus lead NuclearWarfare added some cherry picked references to the article over the course of a few days that would support NuclearWarfare s desired non consensus version of the lead sentence Jmh649 aka Doc James deleted death and added a viability reference which did not enjoy consensus and was a contentious edit coyly referencing the cherry picked references cited by NuclearWarfare altered to reflect references A few minutes before he made this edit Jmh649 DocJames was invovled in substantive discussion on the talk page in which there was clearly no consensus for the change and in fact an objection to the change was made with copious medical references to verify the validity of the long standing consensus version Yet he made the edit anyway JJL jumpd in to copy edit and endorse the new wording DMSBel tried to come up with a compromise that acknowledged the validity of the long standing consensus but included the concerns of the handful of edit warriors JJL Nuclear and DocJames