Talk:The Cause of Suppression

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Book or Booklet

The article says both and says them in the first paragraph. is a book... The book is part of the From the Scientology Handbook series of booklets, which reprint segments of the handbook. Terryeo 17:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have nothing better to do all day than to quibble over microscopic and pointless distinctions? A booklet is a type of book. To put it another way, "Booklet" is a subset of "Book". Therefore, it does no harm to use the terms interchangeably. wikipediatrix 17:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern is for the reader. It would be very easy to remove "let" from the two instances of "book" and would better serve our readers.

• booklet - a small book usually having a paper cover [1]
• booklet - a little book, esp. one with paper covers; pamphlet.[2]
• Book: A set of written, printed, or blank pages fastened along one side and encased between protective covers. [3]
• Book: a written or printed work of fiction or nonfiction, usually on sheets of paper fastened or bound together within covers.[4]

If the object is a booklet, the article should say so, if it is a book, the article should say so. The number of pages and the quality of the covers determines the difference. Why would we not want our readers informed of this information in a clear and concise manner? Terryeo 18:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Go outside, get some fresh air, walk the dog, rent a movie. This is a non-issue. wikipediatrix 20:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Good, I am glad to understand it as a non-issue. No problem. When a reader goes to a public library and is looking for a "book" would it not better serve our reader if he (or she) understood he (or she) was seeking a "booklet" ? And, perhaps even better, if he (or she) had some idea of how many pages the "booklet" had ? My arguement is for consistancy and not toward disagreement. Terryeo 15:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)