https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Review
the cass review page on wikipedia literally features no summary of the actual content of the report at the start, instead just listing all the random groups that criticized it (leaving out WPATH who endorsed it)
- 14
- 74
Top Poster of the Day:
J
Current Registered Users: 31,872
BROWSE EFFORTPOSTS
SITE GUIDE
HOLES
PING GROUPS
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
"at the start" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. the report is summarised fairly robustly in the article (you have to click on the sections titled "final report" and "findings" fyi)
i don't really know how you could neutrally summarise the "findings" of the report in an introductory paragraph anyway because the report makes fairly discrete recommendations, it's not overall condemning or supporting trans shit. if you get into the weeds in the introduction it stops being an introduction. i'm not in the business of defending Wikipedia jannies but you sound like a schizo
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
i just thought it was funny that there's probably an edit war on that page, but i also dont think reception of the article should be more important than the findings. especially when wiki jannies will want to paint it as THE transphobic report that wasnt hecking peer reviewed!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
With a few sentences in the beginning of the webpage, ya dip.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Do it!
I stand with Israel squandering the last of the Holocaust
guilt 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Okay, here you go!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context