Talk:Master suppression techniques

message: As is the way with lesser-known articles that fall under potentially controversial topics, there's been a small edit war here over the past month. I feel it would be conducive to overall progress of the page if, before further editing, we sit down and chat about what should/should not be included in Wikipedia articles as per Wikipedia guidelines, rather than what may or may not be subjective opinion. I personally feel the main issue here is the lack of sources for the edits in question, with the subheading 'Example' being somewhat vague as to what content is deemed appropriate.
I'd like to admit I'm no Wikipedia veteran and so am not au fait with all the policies which may be relevant here, but Wikipedia does strive to be neutral and objective in its content. I appreciate that may be difficult since any page under the categories 'Abuse, Rhetoric and Feminist Theory' is bound to inspire strong viewpoints and relevant examples may be inflammatory. However, I would posit that when it comes to a theory which is rooted in feminist ideas (specifically with regards the patriarchy, back in 1945 and 1970 I might add), it is appropriate to use examples to which the theory pertained, e.g. perceived suppression of females by males/the patriarchy.
I hope that it can be reasonably agreed that the recent additions referring to 'privilege', being 'unmanly' and (my favourite) 'cis scum' are not, in fact, objective nor relevant to the time period of the published theory (interesting fact: the term 'cisgender' seems first to have been coined around 2007, as per the Wikipedia article on it.)
I'd humbly suggest, therefore, that we attempt to find either examples used within the seminal work (even if biased towards the viewpoints the theory espouses) or we try to settle on neutral examples of each of the suppression techniques in question. The article overall does need more sources and citations though.
Thanks in advance!
Irandill (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed original research and the POV language that remained. Seriously, complaining about 'male tears' on Wikipedia articles is not appropriate, do that on your blog. Tutelary (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The majority of the article beyond the introduction lacks citations and the only possible reference (the external link not listed as a reference) does not contain the same information as the ultra-condensed lists that make up most of the article. Should it be removed? 97.82.138.203 (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Theoretically, yes but WP:SOFIXIT and WP:DUE and we are also obligated to fix it, not just remove it. If it's gonna be apart of the final article at the end, it should be included. I bet you all of this was nearly fixed on one of the sources and/or was just added as an IP tirade but it sounds legitimate so no one will remove it. Gonna investigate this further. Tutelary (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

text:  Most of the content that is unsourced came within these two edits but they're citing another source and gonna check that out. Adding onto this, it seems that the wording and the phrasing is original (did a plagiarism search) so no copyvios...I just wonder if all of this is based on the book sources which I can't exactly verify. Tutelary (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edits 

message: It would be helpful if someone would expand on this section of the article so that it more closely resembled the section "The five master suppression techniques according to Ås". As it is now, the countermeasures are simply listed, with no explanation as to what they mean or examples of their use. I imagine the reference used for that section would be helpful, but it appears to be written in Swedish, which I cannot read. Would someone fluent in Swedish be willing to use the article to help expand this section? sudo_science (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countermeasures against master suppression techniques