Talk:Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
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)
[edit] 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)
