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 or 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