Talk:Shere Hite

message: I tried to spruce up this page somewhat, but only really got to putting in headings before realising I'm way too tired to start adding real content (its way past midnight). I'm keen to move forward with this article, and save it from the "cleanup" tag. I accept that my edit as it stands isn't great - so please be spured into action, or else I will come back and do a better job soon. An An 13:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Slacker edit

message: re: Edits by 193.167.195.60
The criticisms of Hite's statistical method might be valid criticisms of any statistical sampling. However,tThe criticisms don't really address the discursive approach and ultimate findings of Hite's work, they merely seek to discredit the foundation of the research as 'unscientific'. The remark about Hite's suposedly 'unorthodox' way of formulating questions is illuminating. These arguments could be better put on a more general scientific context. In this context, its merely feminist-bashing. An An 11:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Hite's statistical method 

message: The "see alsos" on this page all address different types of methodological bias. There's not a single link to any other concept in feminism or sexology. Are there any objections to my paring those links down to just "sampling bias?" I feel that this is an issue that needs to be resolved. Asarkees 06:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 10 days and still no comments on this issue. 10 more, and I will remove the NPOV marker. Asarkees 05:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related articles ... neutral? 

message: I looked up this article because I was interested in this topic, and I was wonder what happened to her after the 1980s (she stopped writing almost entirely after this point, though I see she has a new collection of essays coming out). Anyway, other than a few notes on her educational background, this article is completely lacking in the most basic biographical details. Not good – somebody who's a Shere Hite "expert" needs to fill in the missing details. Peter G Werner 02:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, the German article mentions a different birth name. Is it relevant here? --142.103.92.209 20:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is her husband, not her lover. Anyway, the age difference is well-documented, and since she's a sex expert, it's more likely to be relevant than for most people, and it seems to be an important element of the story she tells about herself. The source is an article about an interview she gave. The ages at the time of the marriage are striking: she was 42 and he was 23. --Orlady (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biographical info? 

message: The first paragraph of the article contains references 1 and 2 which do not have a corresponding link in the References section. Where are they? I couldn't find them in previous revisions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.118.86 (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The external New Statesman reference is a broken link. Preacherdoc (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would also be useful to have references to her peer-reviewed papers. Wally Tharg (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing references 

message: I have read that the Hite report was hugely influential. It's been credited with starting the sexual revolution.  None of this is mentioned in this article. All this talk about Hite's methodology seems beside the point, if she was indeed the first to raise certain issues. --142.103.92.209 20:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I may add some information about her influence at a later date. I already added a source back in June 2011 that discusses her influence. As for reasonable people giving her findings credence, I would say they should since she turned out to be right. Her findings have been consistently reproduced in newer studies about female sexuality and orgasm. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

text: As touched on by the first poster in this section, this article provides sufficient criticism of her work. Seeing as there is currently more criticism than there is praise of it, there needs to be more information about that praise so as to not be non-WP:Neutral (specifically avoiding being WP:UNDUE) with criticism information. Whatever flaws in her work, she had an incredibly positive impact on female sexuality (as mentioned in the source I linked above), and, like I stated above, her findings have been consistently reproduced in newer studies. There really should be a lot more in this article about how her work impacted women (and, in some ways, men), from positive influence to any negative influence, as long as we give the information due weight. Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hite Report – influence 

message: What on earth does 
"On the other hand, social science methodological differences when questions are on publicly consequential subjects, e.g., immediacy vs. time for thoughtfulness when answering, can result in differences in honesty and promises of confidentiality are not all equally believed by prospective respondents, affecting respondents' openness and honesty."
mean? If it's meaningful, should it have references?
Blaise (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have already seen, judging by this edit you made two minutes following, but I removed that text. I can't tell if it's supported by the Zimbardo source that was (and still is) used in the fist sentence about him, but it definitely needed better wording/grammar. For example, the "and promises" part should have had a comma before it; not having that kept leading me to reading the sentence wrongly, including my mind somehow seeing the "are" as a grammar issue. Flyer22 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomprehensible 

message: I've removed two entries from the external links section because they're not likely to be helpful or accessible to most readers. However, they're valuable resources and may be quite useful to someone, so I'm leaving them here rather than buried in the page history.
* Video and motion picture collection of Shere Hite, ca. 1978-2006: A Finding Aid at the Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University
* Audiotape collection of Shere Hite, 1977-2004: A Finding Aid at the Schlesinger Library, Radcliffe Institute, Harvard University
 Rebbing  talk  05:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shere Hite audiovisual recordings in the Radcliffe Institute's collections 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Shere Hite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111012204321/http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/aww_02/aww_02_00560.html to http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/aww_02/aww_02_00560.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is her unusual name pronounced Sh'Ray Hitter, Sheer Height, Sherry Hittay, or what?
:To this undated question, the parenthesised pronunciation makes it a combination of the last two candidates, Sherry Height. (I am not a Professor Higgins.)Cloptonson (talk) 07:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of her name 

message: I have removed the story about the Olivetti typewriter. Even though the story has appeared in numerous print articles, this website (https://oztypewriter.blogspot.com/2020/09/the-hite-report-and-lies-about-olivetti.html) seems to conclusively falsify the story.
If a photo of the ad actually surfaces, and references can be found to Hite and other feminists protesting about the ad, do reinstate the story.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyburns (talk • contribs) 12:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Olivetti Story – no attribution and is almost certainly false. 

message: I query the statement Friedrich Horicke 'was 19 years her junior' because in both his English and German wikipedia articles his birth year (without birthday indicated) is stated to be 1963, which makes him 20-21 years junior to her. To be literally correct and mesh with her established recorded birth date he would have had be be born in 1961-62. The cited retrospective newspaper story does not quantify age difference only that the couple's ages were then 42 (hers) and 23 (his). Makes me ask, as far as mention on the wiki page goes, should it stay or should it be left off, or can it be rephrased to tell the reader not to dogmatically accept it? Cloptonson (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Age gap between her and first husband