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 can not 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