If we are going to keep them separate then all we need to say in the lead is of NXIVM period and then put the onus on that article to say what it is although it could be restated below Then if there is going to be an apositive after a comma that says what it is then it should be a fair summary of that article At the moment I m not so sure that whether that s true Also as you know we re not really supposed to cite leads they are summaries of the article that follows Ergo we can say that some people found it very succesful if that s the word they used if that s cited in the text below which we can do It s a bit cherry picking I think please have a look at the sources on this discussion page to bring that out of the main points of the sources but nevertheless I ll work it back in because you re right we have to be as neutral as we can What I was trying to do my main purpose for the edit was about what the nature and scope of this article and that one was going to be If we keep them separate we can link in place of explaining but I really think we should consider merging because otherwise it should be written diffently