only explaining what narth claims no it provides a soft endorsement wikipedia is for the benefit of readers not for the progaganda interests of orgs the claim that all ssa treated by the org is unwanted is a wp redflag claim see mos quote it is always wrong to use phrases like the site is considered sacred by the religion's scriptures because it interpolates an opinion also wp attributepov no reason the lead shouldn't explain what narth's claims are wp fringe and wp redflag applies if they are wrong they need analysis in the body not presentation as soft endorsement in the lead