curprev01:1401:14, 2 June 2024 Prcc27talkcontribs 146,214 bytes+124 Please quit lying. MrOllie did not !vote and BonCourage would like to see different wording, but has not explicitly expressed opposition to some sort of mention on ethics.Tag: Undo
curprev00:2500:25, 2 June 2024 KlayCaxtalkcontribs 146,090 bytes−124 What consensus? Current opinion on the talk page is 4-3 in the *opposite* direction. (Pro: Prcc27, Piccco, RakdosWitch; Anti: Me, MrOllie, Bon Courage, and FootballRocker) Controversies should only be in the lead if there is substantial, long-lasting notability. We already include differing perspectives on medical value/culture in the same paragraph. We intentionally exclude it on articles surrounding gender-affirming surgery, labiaplasty, [[tattoos], and other related subjects.Tags: UndoReverted
1 June 2024
curprev06:1206:12, 1 June 2024 Prcc27talkcontribs 146,214 bytes+124 Please re-read the first sentence of WP:WEIGHT. Major medical organizations from the AAP to the CPS to the KNMG all address ethics in their policy statements. Prophylactic efficacy has little to nothing to do with ethics and culture. Consensus leans in favor of including controversies in the lead.Tags: UndoReverted
curprev16:1916:19, 13 April 2024 Prcc27talkcontribs 146,213 bytes+124 Having nothing at all is nothing-y. We should definitely work on improving the sentence, but for now, this seems like the best compromise.Tag: Undo
curprev01:3701:37, 6 April 2024 Prcc27talkcontribs 146,213 bytes+124 Please see the archives on past discussions, and the current discussion where there isn’t really any strong opposition to including ethics, aside from you. That’s a medical viewpoint on efficacy (and does not really say anything about ethics or controversy). Cultural, societal, and ethical viewpoints are also relevant, and a concise sentence in contrast to a whole paragraph on the medical viewpoint is WP:DUE. Saying there are various ethical views hardly suggests there’s a controversy.Tags: UndoReverted
5 April 2024
curprev23:4823:48, 5 April 2024 KlayCaxtalkcontribs 146,089 bytes−124 Where's the consensus at? We already *do* include it. ". Some medical organizations take the position that it carries prophylactic health benefits which outweigh the risks, while other medical organizations generally hold the belief that in these situations its medical benefits are not counterbalanced by risk"Tags: UndoReverted
4 April 2024
curprev19:0919:09, 4 April 2024 Prcc27talkcontribs 146,213 bytes+124 There is a consensus to mention controversies in the lead, and the sentence was actually very mild. Weren’t you the person that initially proposed the compromise?Tags: UndoReverted
curprev00:4700:47, 30 March 2024 Prcc27talkcontribs 146,546 bytes+457 Only 3 of 4 users actually made a policy based argument at the current section. We don’t edit Wikipedia based on personal experiences or preferences. Please see WP:JDL.Tags: UndoReverted
curprev20:2620:26, 29 March 2024 KlayCaxtalkcontribs 146,089 bytes−70 Prevalence section is WP:AGF. However, it simply repeats what is in the article, with the data now 20+ years old. (The rest of the Anglosphere has significantly lower rates now.)Tag: Visual edit
curprev18:5018:50, 29 March 2024 KlayCaxtalkcontribs 146,159 bytes−411 Reverted good faith edits by PuppyMonkey. Neonatal circumcision is only the dominant form in Judaism and the Anglosphere. (Where most editors on English Wikipedia likely edit.) Sexual impact is already mentioned in the "sexual effects" section.Tag: Manual revert
