The Devil's Advocate: As to your claims about the second sentence, you are mistaken on several points. WP:LEDE says nothing about primary sources, even if your description of that source as a primary source had any legitimacy. 
 ::* You seem to be operating under significant misunderstanding here.  The portion of WP:LEAD that is relevant is this: Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.  Sources (primary or otherwise) which exist only in the lead cannot be considered trivial/basic facts.  I realize that wikipedia policy is not always straightforward, but your approach and understanding of policy does not appear to be sufficiently developed.  Please do invest some more time in understanding policy.  The content sourced to (Ceci/Williams) is clearly under dispute.  Without a secondary source to establish the weight of that content inserting it into the article is a misuse of primary sources.  Inserting editorial content into the lead without author attribution, as if it were fact, is a gross misuse of sources.  Disruptive editing like this only hurts the project.