Talk:Rind et al. (1998)

Let me know if this is the type of stub you're looking for.

These are exceeding easy to create and I hope it would stem into a cohesive collection. Cale Tucker 16:50, 7 August 2005 (EDT)

Yes, that's perfect and exactly what we're looking for--thanks so much for this writeup! Please do note the use of spaces in article titles and the use of section heading markup in lieu of "strong" markup. --Hínandil 23:20, 7 August 2005 (EDT)

Why "Rind Report"? I know this is the way media (and boylovers alike) refer to this article but still it is an article not a mere report. Reports are usually written by a variety of groups (professional, governmental, NGO's, advocacy, etc) and are not always scientific. Peer-reviewed articles, however, are subject to scientific scrutiny, especially when published in the flagship journal of the most influential psychological association in the world. The media have tried to downplay its importance by calling it a report. Unfortunately not all boylovers are familiar with the difference between a report and a peer-reviewed article and the name stuck within the online boylove community as well. Suggestion: since an encyclopedia's goal is to educate, lets change this entry's title and put it into a proper context.Kes 16:22, 16 June 2006 (EDT)

It's unclear that a simple article title could convey all of the detail that you have provided above. Better, I think, would be to include this information in the article itself, or to start a new article on peer review linked from this one. If a different title were desired, using the article's full name, A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples, would probably be best. In particular, Wikipedia's article title Rind, et al. could refer to more than one article, and would best be used to refer to all articles authored or co-authored by Rind. --Foo 23:18, 16 June 2006 (EDT)

On further investigation, it seems that Wikipedia uses the canonical title Rind et al. (1998), which seems to be both unambiguous and used by the authors themselves (e.g., in their 2001 publication The validity and appropriateness of methods, analyses, and conclusions in Rind et al (1998): A rebuttal of Victimological Critique from Ondersma et al. (2001) and Dallam et al. (2001).). --Foo 11:32, 17 June 2006 (EDT)

They (Rind and others) use "Rind et al." because they cannot use one article's title within another article's title. If they did, it would be like: "The validity and appropriateness of methods, analyses, and conclusions in Rind, Bauserman and Tromovitch, 'A Meta-Analytic Examination of Assumed Properties of Child Sexual Abuse Using College Samples': A rebuttal of Victimological Critique from Ondersma (and so on...)". Still, "Rind et al. (1998)" is much better than "Rind Report". I suggest that someone should change it and also make a redirect or something (I am lacking the technical skills for this one, I'm afraid).Kes 12:02, 17 June 2006 (EDT)

You have to be a curator or a scribe (that is, member of an administrator class) to move a page (which is what we call "renaming" in our wiki software). We will do it if there is a clear consensus to do so. I have added boilerplate text above to indicate that a move is requested. If no opposing arguments appear within reasonable time (say, a few weeks or a month), or there is still consensus, we will move it.

If you find another page you would like moved, you can add the boilerplate yourself by typing {{move|New title}} at the top of the talk page.
— Asch ^{talk to me} 06:49, 18 June 2006 (EDT)

Oops, this was on my list of things to do. In any case, I'm glad you did it, Kes. --Hínandil 21:34, 30 July 2006 (EST)