"

  No, that is not seen.  Steve (Quinn), what you and JW called the ""consensus lede"" was soooooo heavily biased toward the POV of physics (the ""operational definition"") and measurement that, whether it had existed for 4 years or not, it was far beneath Wikipedia standards.  As I pointed out in the AN/I that you started, you're not a very good listener.  The previous lede was shit.  Only POV.  Your objections have been swatted aside.  The current lede isn't what I would like to see either.  Every word I used has been solidly supported by the OED or MW or AH.  Even ""indefinite"" (as you shown with your OED link).  Even ""continued"", even ""progress"", even ""existence"".  Your reference to the OED has all those words, yet they don't appear in the lede and you consistently objected to their inclusion.  
You cannot self-righteously hold yourself up as supporting Wikipedia standards.  E.g. and e.g.  Steve Quinn, you're a crappy Wikipedia editor.  You're a POV pusher.  You don't listen.  You don't recognize sourcing when presented to you and you don't recognize the obvious bias and POV in old edits you defend and seem to like.
A Wikipedia lede, designed by committee, will seldom have the coherence and conciseness of a well-written lede designed by one or two persons with knowledge and vision.  I'm willing to leave it, even though it has those deficits.  What exists, although clunky (run-on sentence, omitting key words from the primary definitions in the English dictionaries) is far, far better, far, far more in adherence to the second pillar than what you and Jim were defending.   It doesn't matter that it was there for 4 years.  It was discovered by some other folks, myself included, solid objections were raised (even before I came on the scene), and you could not and would not hear it.
Don't delude yourself, Steve Quinn. 70.109.183.229  "