User:Andrew Lancaster/Old ID lead notes

Notes on proposal:
 * In theory, there are separable changes within the proposal, but actually leads should be short and flowing, whereas piecemeal editing often leads to a lack of flow, and change proposals are often judged wrongly when looked at in isolation from the possible tweaks in context which could maintain flow.
 * One basic theme, as per the normal aims of lead writing, is to get to the defining and clarifying stuff quickly, and put details later.
 * As proposed by Guettarda, with apparent approval from Dave souza, the Numbers citation from the old FA version is reinserted. But this is done in a flow of comment which allows us to also take up other ideas of myself and Dave souza:
 * As per Dave souza's proposal, the comment about pseudo science is moved up to the end of the first paragraph, but to make this work better, the second paragraph is also now made of material moved up from below, concerning the movement and the DI, and is now a logical continuation giving more context.
 * Using wording directly connected to the Ayala and Haught, I have now attempted to include wording in the opening lines which, as proposed, helps readers contrast with older antecedents of ID, which are not the subject of this article.
 * Discussion of the specific pseudo-scientific theories such as irreducible complexity and specified complexity moved to the last paragraph.
 * The discussion of the who the Discovery Institute is, now all moved to one place, which aims to be withing a flow of discussion that neither over nor under states their importance in a broader movement and chain of events.
 * Footnotes have been reviewed. Many of the footnotes we have are apparently relics of many past versions and no longer seem to relate to the sentences they are attached to. (Instead things have apparently been maintained on the more is better principle, with footnotes being added but never removed?)