This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Latter Day Saint movement Mid‑importance This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement Mid This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Academic Journals This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Does anyone have info on the recent reader survey that Stirling refers to in the article? --Trödel 18:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes. it's in a pdf document linked to by "Survey Tables (Raw Data") at Dialoguejournal.com. What is needed now is for someone (like me, you, or her) to digest that and provide a summary of some demographic and other interesting data. Stirling 20:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thx for the reference - we need to be careful about summarization as that can be original research but we can report on the facts - Dialogue (or whoever did the report) reports their readers are x. see discussion on OR at Talk:Anti-Mormon near the bottom of the page re Brodie --Trödel 21:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TX for the NOR lesson. I think I've complied, but if you feel it needs work, I'm willing. Stirling 21:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NP - of course, as you can tell from the discussion at Anti-Mormon, people have different views of what is or is not original research. Be sure to read the policy yourself(WP:NOR) so that you can help us all implement it correctly. I noticed there is also an article that accompanies the survey results. That is even better because it will give statements interpretting the results so that we don't have to - and keeps us clear (IMHO). --Trödel 00:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find that PDF file anywhere at that site: can someone find an update URL? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been in contact with people who have been 'peer reviewers' for Dialogue; they say that they were contacted by Dialogue and asked to do reviews. An actual peer review does not work in that manner; editors on the journal's staff do not know the identities of the reviewers. An independent concern conducts the actual review, choosing the 'blind' reviewers. Dialogue has not answered my request of them to define the process they use. I am sure that each source you cited was told that Dialogue was double blind peer reviewed by Dialogue, with no real proof of the same. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is original research --Trödel 18:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked them to publish their claim of being 'peer reviewed'; obviously there is a reason why they choose to not do it. Their version of 'peer review' would allow them to publish Mormon propaganda under a false premise. The Salt Lake newspapers just rubberstamped what they were told by the church. Duke53 | ^Talk 18:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a reliable source which has an issue with them calling it peer-reviewed, that can be added to the article. Since the sources already provided state that it is peer reviewed, and no reliable evidence has been provided to the contrary, there is no need for further debate or citations. --Lethargy 01:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sources 'cited' do not tell how they came to that conclusion; seems like they are accepting the journal's claim. Their definition of 'double blind' may be that the writer doesn't know who the reviewer is and the reviewer doesn't know who the writer is; hence 'double blind'. In a true double blind peer review the only ones who know those identities are the people at the peer review agency, which is independent of the journal. This journal hasn't replied to my questions about their system, which leads me to believe that there is something amiss. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article never states that is a double blind peer review, it just says peer review. As stated in the peer review article, there are different styles of peer review. --Lethargy 02:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, more weasel words. :) Why am I not surprised? Duke53 | ^Talk 05:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke53, the [[1] Wikipedia article on peer review]suggests it is normal for journal editors to be aware of the identities of the reviewers. In my experience with legal and sociology publications, that is the common practice. And in fact, if I'm an editor, if I have article commentary from a reviewer, I often would need to know who he or she is in order to give appropriate to weight his/her comments. (I can also see in some circumstances where there would benefits in not knowing who conducted the review). 137.65.145.27

Yeah, the claim by Duke53 that "actual peer review does not work in that manner" is flat-out wrong; it's standard practice in many fields for the journal's staff to contact reviewers and ask them to review an article in their particular area. The term "peer review" does not in any way imply double-blind peer review, which in most fields is neither common nor considered desirable. I speak as a computer science researcher who also has some knowledge of how chemistry journals operate. --Delirium 10:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dialogue-covers-animated-lo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to the name change of this article one year ago, from "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought" to "Dialogue (journal)". I didn't see any comment about it here on the talk page. I'm not sure that this bothers me very much, it just surprised me. I skimmed Wikipedia:Article titles and both names seem acceptable, as far as I can tell. In favor of the original, full name, I think the full name of the journal is more precise and doesn't need to get disambiguation involved. In favor of the new, shortened title, is it less clutter to read through, because it uses fewer characters? (But links will have to use a pipe to hide the disambiguation, either by [[Dialogue (journal)|Dialogue]] or by [[Dialogue (journal)|]].)

"Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought" is a mouthful, and people often say "Dialogue" for short. But the word "dialogue" is ambiguous by itself and might not be immediately recognizable as the Mormon periodical, so I still intend to use "Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought" for the first mention and thereafter probably just "Dialogue". ——Rich jj (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We hardly ever use subtitles of journals in the article titles. And wikilinking to [[Dialogue (journal)|Dialogue]] is not really more cumbersome than linking to [[Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought|Dialogue]]... --Randykitty (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I probably wouldn't use ''[[Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought|Dialogue]]'' because my first mention in the article would just state the full name with the link, ''[[Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought]]'', and thereafter only ''Dialogue'' (without repeated linking).

That said, I now accept the current title. I looked for other examples where a disambig word was used in place of the stated subtitle, and there were too many from Humanities journals before I even got to law and philosophy. This list would be even longer if all articles stated the subtitle that I could see in the cover image. (Sorry for the length. I never know when to stop.)

Journals replacing subtitles with disambiguation words

Journals with subtitles in title

——Rich jj (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]