Extended comments about this
The comments by BritishWatcher show the problems at present.

I gave him a simple choice, assume good faith and take me at my word, or buy the book. Instead he chose option C, whine and assume bad faith.

He asserts I have not provided an alternate text written from the source instead of the current text. If he had bothered to read the discussion, he would realise I have said more than once that it is not possible to construct an accurate, non-misleading sentence that belongs in the lead of the article from that source. So I cannot do that.

The problems are quite simple:

The original sentence which was copied to the lead (complete with egregious modifications of the original sentence to mean something completely different!) did not match the source, and is therefore unsourced.
It is impossible to construct an accurate, non-misleading sentence that belongs in the lead of the article from that source.
Various editors have produced no sources at all to support any figures about injuries or opinions they have said should be included in the lead.
Various editors refuse to allow an unsourced (as the text does not match the source in any way) sentence to be removed from the article. They are so insistent on retaining an incorrect, unsourced sentence. Not only that, they keep proposing equally incorrect, unsourced sentences that either cite zero sources or inaccurately cite the existing source.
I have asked many times why the reader should be misled. It is quite telling that nobody dare give me a straight policy based answer to that question, especially when the protection policy allows for its removal.

When one side's discussion involves nothing more than assumptions of bad faith, stalling, stonewalling and making things up from thin air, it is obvious where the problem lies.