Talk:Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] What use the disambiguation

"not to be confused with the larger and more well-known book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health." says the article. What use is this disambiguation? We have:

• Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health
• Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science
  

Three words are common to both titles but they use quite different words in different positions. What use is a disambiguation? Terryeo 14:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited, weasel worded generality

Re: the cover and the uniforms of the men on it: which some have speculated is a reference to the story of Xenu.

• There is no citation. Who made such speculation, when did they make such speculation, when was their speculation published, who published their speculation, what makes their speculation noteworthy, what book or newspaper contains their speculation, are the speculators referred to experts of note ?
• According to Wikipedia, Xenu information happened long after 1955. What speculator states this 1955 artist's conception references to the myth of Xenu which was (apparently) not in existence in 1955 ?
• Normally, "speculations" are not part of an article. However, if speculations are going to be part of an article, they should be well referenced. How about we just remove that phrase, what do you say? Terryeo 14:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The picture clearly states that it's the cover of the 1972 edition. Next! AndroidCat 15:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't embold speculation enough. I'm raising the issue that the speculation is not referenced. I am not talking about the picture, but about unreferenced speculation regarding the picture. For example, any picture or photograph can be speculated about. College classes often do this about works of art, including artist depictions. The cover is an artist's depiction. It certainly can be speculated about. The point I raise is "What publication has published the speculations which the article says have been published"? Terryeo 17:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] It may seem boring, but

I have made two negative comments above. If the disambiguation is removed and if the weasel worded speculation phrase is removed, the article grows considerably shorter. It is not my intent to criticize. It is my intent to have the article present good, encyclopedic information to the reader. The book itself is immediately available online to a reader if he wishes to explore it. Can we just keep it nice and simple? As with every Scientology article I expect there will be lots of misunderstanding and criticism. Potentially there is the whole misunderstanding of what a 'reactive mind' is and other topics which the book covers. But let us not disperse the reader's attention with speculation by unknown, unreferenced third parties and disambiguations, separating this book from apples and fruitcake, okay ? Terryeo 14:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)