A problem with the term simultaneity is that there is more than one type of simultaneity evident in the two paintings referred to in the paragraph that you are using as a source I want to emphasize that I think paraphrasing is important There is nothing magical about the terminology that sources use for visual phenomenon that characterize Cubism Furthermore I think I find that sources vary in the language they employ to describe these visual effects It is difficult to describe what one can see I think there is a cliche about that Google Image searches for Delaunay City of Paris and Lger The Wedding allow us to see the two paintings the source refers to I was unfamiliar with these paintings The type of simultaneity the source refers to is what I will refer to as the implantation of motifs where they do not naturally belong I am not suggesting that language I am simply trying to communicate here on the Talk page There is also another kind of simultaneity not mentioned in that paragraph in that source This might be called a simultaneity of perspective in which the viewer is granted multiple views of an object as though the viewer were able to witness the object from more than one vantage point The reason why I am explaining all this is because it is background material to establishing connections between isms being referred to I find it problematic to simply say in the lead that Early Futurist paintings hold in common with Cubism the fusing of the past and the present different views of the subject pictured at the same time also called multiple perspective or simultaneity In my opinion that is not crystal clear My solution is to leave the details out of the lead In my opinion you describe the material called for in the lead quite well in your Talk page post immediately above at  The reader can read that and not get stumped