Talk:Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vroney18.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:14, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

In parts of this article, it sounds like the writer is arguing Rich's points, rather than reporting on what they are. Can someone familiar with the essay go through and take out anything that wasn't argued by Rich herself? I'm a little concerned that the article sounds POV if it's not made clear that Rich is the one making the points discussed, not the writer of the article. Thanks! delldot | talk 23:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I also wish to add, that I think it needs some sort of cleanup, I mean to fix the level of English used... It just seems quite low quality, the language itself, to be an encyclopædic article...Claude.Xanadu 21:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the article has only been tidied up by putting "Rich" at the start of each paragraph? Mathmo ^Talk 04:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This sentence in particular seems rather POV to me: "Society has to recognize marriage as a political institution before it can explore an "innate" sexuality pertaining to women." 70.137.163.182 23:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this article has already been cleaned up, but the language seems entirely appropriate and the article does not seem POV, as is obvious from reading even the first few paragraph's of Rich's essay - the author of this entry has writen a very balanced description of it given how radical the essay actually is. The writer does a vary good job of explaining the meaning of Rich's argument as it exists within feminist discourse. The only problem with the entry is in the second to last paragraph: I don't think something can be imposed subversively.

I agree, the article seems nicely written Towsonu2003 22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It could still use a bit of cleanup. The problem isn't the content but that it isn't clearly being attributed to Rich, and sounds as though it is the opinion of the article's writer or is stated as fact. Potatman (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Category:Sexism

I think adding this article to Category:Sexism could be highly misleading and PoV. Comments? Gwen Gale (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Essay?

I love this writing, but it feels more like an essay than an encyclopaedic article. The issues of compulsory heterosexuality is a wide and varied one, but this article is written to have a point, or an argument, whereas encyclopaedias are more about what a theory involves and what sort of people subscribe to it. Opinions?2.125.127.106 (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion quite a while ago for it being almost entirely original research (ie, an essay). It was turned down with the advice to clean it up. It think it was written as part of a university group project on Women's Studies. Several other similar essays were written as articles at about the same time. Span (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have intensely studied this article, and have held many college-level course discussions about it. In my opinion, the Wikipedia information is an accurate summary of the major arguments Rich makes. Dr.ShelBelle (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Utter nonsense

This meme is preposterous. Of course heterosexuality is natural, without it the species dies out. DOH. PumpkinSky talk 23:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Overly detailed tag

This essay is obviously written on a touchy topic, and from what I've seen, its deletion and modification have been requested several times before, each time being rejected. However, years later, this page remains extremely detailed and complex, and as a result, I've added an "overly detailed" tag. Keep in mind that I'm just some shmuck stopping in from Special:Random, so if my tag is inaccurate, feel free to remove it. However, if anyone who's read the essay agrees and feels prepared to clean it up, just work off of WP:Indiscriminate and you should be fine. 2601:643:8102:AAA0:8108:F92E:D6DF:C972 (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160213095421/http://people.terry.uga.edu/dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm to http://people.terry.uga.edu/dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Influence

As it exists, this article offers an excellent Cliff's Notes of Rich's essay. A stronger article (among other additions) would include a section on the essay's influence in the fields of gender and sexuality studies, and that influence is profound. As one example, C.J. Pascoe's book Dude, You're a Fag begins from Rich's thesis to argue for compulsive heterosexuality. I have begun a conversation with a colleague who advocates for Wikipedia Education projects and, herself, teaches Intro to Women's Studies about having a class address this article's issues.

Possible sources

Here’s a quick link to Google Scholar where more sources can be found. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)