Talk:Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Essay?

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Overly detailed tag 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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