":::: Pf, I knew that you were paying me a compliment regarding that, but I didn't want to accept such payment when all I was doing was copying out of the dictionary.  I do want to point out to SQ, JW and such that one can stand on NPOV with much more confidence when they rely on the dictionary definitions instead of their own opinions.  Unless you think you're a lexicographer, relying on the dictionary immunizes yourself from charges of POV.
Now that it looks like some reform is gonna stick, I am much less unsatisfied than I was when I came upon the article back in June or whenever.  But it is clunky, designed by committee.  I had hoped that enough of you guys would understand the importance of defining time, on the outset, as these two different (and not really competing) definitions, first as a phenomenon (where I drew every word out of the dictionary references, including ""indefinite"" and ""existence"", etc.) and then as a measurement (what Steve Quinn likes to call the ""operational"" definition).  And I had hoped that, because measurement is done both with clocks we build (to measure time in material reality) and with our conscious experience (which is debated among philosophers and lay people as to whether or not that is contained in material reality or is somehow different) that you guys (with the exceptions of SQ and JW) would see the wisdom of not jamming them together in a run-on sentence and see the wisdom of setting up the topic in all three major POVs: Time as phenomenon, Time as physical measurement, Time as experience right away in two lede sentences.  Everything else in the article will fall under one of those three; ""religion, philosophy, and science... business, industry, sports, the sciences, music, dance, and the live theater"".  I am convinced that the professor would grade my lede definition higher than what is there now, and far better than what was there before.  Too bad.  But the status quo isn't better than what existed before and since I was unsuccessful (even though everything is solidly referenced) in convincing you, I'll let it go.  Unless SQ or JW try to crap up the lede again, then I'll be back, and the rest of us also should be vigilant.  Maybe someday, this will be a good article.  But no matter how well the rest of the article is done, if the lede is crappy, the article as a whole cannot be ""good"".
 Bestest, 70.109.183.229  

"