Since I cant find anything at else metaphorical in the MoS and since guidelines are generally written plainly I dispute that your interpretation is correct  However at this point we are obviously not going to get any further on this point as to me it is plainly obvious that the guideline does not apply here while to you it is plainly obvious that it does  So we have a point of dispute  For now shall we continue on and see what else we agree or disagree on    To me your points  all say approximately the same thingall of them assert that on Wikipedia people use examples to explain things that may be unknown to the reader and that further they do so in the lead  I accept that there are in fact articles that do soyour sample articles are quite convincing in this regard  However I do not believe you are correct to say that this is a trend among may articles  I pointed out three articles  Political Parties Couch and Whaling that do not use examples in places where they could  Now we can spend all day or all week or whatever pulling up articles that do or do not use examples in the lead  What I hope we can agree on is that neither of us could possibly establish that one or the other is the standard without doing some sort of impossible numerical analysis of all Wikipedia articles  Thus I believe that neither one of us can say with certainty This is the way Wikipedia does it  Therefore I argue that we should focus on what is best for this page and this lead  Do you agree with this plan  Or do you have some way to prove that this is a Standard that is broadly applicable to most Wikipedia pages just citing more pages wont prove anything since well just end up citing endlessly with articles both with and without examples in the lead