":::: But in what sense can that comment possibly be “correct”? ""Provided that what is sourced is already in the article""! I can't let that pass, as it is just so damaging - so I'm going to say a few things. You cannot just ‘summarise’ any old group of citations (sometime creating a new thing altogether in doing so - which is excempt from needing proof) – you are absolutely obliged to consider WP:weight, along with other of the many guidelines like WP:red flag in Verifiability, and Notability too. Weight alone will more often than not dictate the new text, as it has done now. 

These retentive methods of ‘Style reviewing’ are a plague across the full scope of Wikipedia, and this article highlights the foolishness (too long maintained) of methodically tick-boxing inherently illogical style-correctness, whilst routinely (ie as a kind of 'policy') ignoring content( which is ironically seen as the job of the editors, who actually get sidelined in the process). In teh past I've seen so many foolish paragraphs pass though ‘style’, even in Featured Articles (another content-shy process believe it or not). There really is nothing clever about being so clinical when it leads to plain misrepresentation, especially with a subject like this. Many non-British would will be mislead by the text on a basic ‘reader’ level here anyway, which just adds more irony to the process of course . As a rule, it is good to consider what you are doing in life in anyway, regardless of your job.

What happened in Nick Griffin is that simple event-verifying  citations from within the article (the few cases of Griffin being invited to speak at mainstream establishments) were converted into a kind of super-flexible ‘source’ material’, which (in that new state) were easily moulded into the stand-alone line ""Since he became the leader of the BNP several educational institutions have invited him to speak on political radicalism, multiculturalism, and BNP policy."" I strongly suspect that no one got a shoe-in to actually add any weight, due to the rigid system involved - where new  content is demoted in value, and even at times discouraged. I’ve seen it happen too often, it’s just plain dumb. What’s worse, a general ethos of ‘protecting the result’ comes from the process, which ended here in me being accused of ‘vandalism’ for attempting change, which I really object to. It really is dumb.

Imagine someone collecting a handful of citations of various people expressing an opinion (shall we say of black people being inferior to whites?) and places them in a relevant section in an article (say a ""Controversy"" section in a new and developing article called ""Racism"") . According to Wikipedia’s Style Council, this line inserted at the end of the intro would theoretically be fine: ""Many people believe that black people are inferior to whites”. As there was nothing in the developing article about the many issues surrounding IQ test and the reading of them both past and present, no balance is made, and the Intro passes with flying colours. The new authorised version is then considered as ‘passing consensus’ – a broadly finished thing that is duly protected from change.

The Intro equation I’ve seen many times is: X (citations of comments existing somewhere i n the article) = Z (a new flexible ‘source’ material  when grouped) = Y (a new and uncited statement of fact, based on the new entity of the ‘source’). THE INNER WORKINGS OF ‘SUMMARY’ ARE SIMPLY NOT APPARENT TO THE TYPICAL WIKIPEDIA READER, who is always at the very bottom of the Wikipedia heap, just below the general editor.

(THE HEAP:

The brass

Empowered admin, style controllers etc

General admin

Maintenance editors

Single Purpose accounts

Article-defending editors

New-content editors

General content editors – the lifeblood of Wikipedia.

The ‘general reader’ – central to policy, but so rarely considered.

(placing the Subject and Trolls would be dependent on the perceived importance of the subject))

Articles like Nick Griffin can be difficult and need creative work on the edit level - but that is the point. So much time on Wikipedia is wasted on stylising incomplete articles and weak unbalanced text. It is no way to bypass edit conflict - that ‘’’has’’’ to be done the hard way, such as in finding ways to express weight. Risking edit battles is far superior to squeezing down to make-shift style-approved articles that are subsequently protected from change. Here that process made the introduction bland, weak and misleading, and the added factor of the subject's inherent extremity ensured the article became seriously misleading – to the point that the article became Nick Griffin-friendly, and hence ultimate