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  years or not it was far beneath Wikipedia standards  As I pointed out in the ANI that you started youre not a very good listener  The previous lede was shit  Only POV  Your objections have been swatted aside  The current lede isnt 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 dont appear in the lede and you consistently objected to their inclusion   You cannot selfrighteously hold yourself up as supporting Wikipedia standards  Eg and eg  Steve Quinn youre a crappy Wikipedia editor  Youre a POV pusher  You dont listen  You dont recognize sourcing when presented to you and you dont 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 wellwritten lede designed by one or two persons with knowledge and vision  Im willing to leave it even though it has those deficits  What exists although clunky runon 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 doesnt matter that it was there for  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 Dont delude yourself Steve Quinn