Talk:Edward de Bono

de Bono's writing is clear?
The article suggests that de Bono's writing is simple and clear. Well, no. de Bono's prose takes simple concepts perfectly well explained by his predeccessors and then spends whole books reiterating quite simple points - at book length rather than the paragraph or two they require. Ok thats one opinion,very complex-there is never any justification for things being complex when they could be simple. It has been suggested;the easiest way to be 'superior' is to protend to understand what others cannot understand.For that you need complexity.The reason i think some people find de bonos writing un-clear is because its unique.People who want to use language to destroy de bonos work are dangers to civilisation unless they take the time out to aquire some real education which can be found on de bonos website. It seems that 'jealeouse' criticts are good at complaining but incapable of creating a body of work with more value,de bonos not on an 'ego trip' his sole perpose,his aim is to creat the neccasary tools for people to cope with and improve an increasingly complex society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.132.148 (talk) 09:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

See what I mean!!!
This is a clear example of what I am referring to! CITIZENSHIP is not what we are talking about!!! Being Born in Malta clearly indicates he has a right to retain Maltese Citizenship, but we are talking about nationality. Please read the article posted above, as it very clearly delineates the difference between these two and the issue we are currently discussing. You know, I read a news article this week that warned people about thge perils of relying on Wikipedia for sound information. Initially, I disagreed, as the general public really should be capable of maintaining an encyclopaedia to resonable standards, but some people really go a long way to forfeit other people's useful contributions. I have quoted, time and time and time and time again, several sources, which are at your perusal to verify, that clearly state his nationality, and yet, there are still Wikipedians with the audacity to come back - without having consulted the work of the professionals cited (in books such as the Penguin English Dictionary) - and change the page. No wonder they are slandering us in the News. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.77.201.237 (talk) 10:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC (UTC)

Criticism
Beware of lateral thinking --Error (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Titles
The impressive list of titles "physician, psychologist, author, inventor and broadcaster" is potentially misleading. It is not clear from this article or any other that I have found concerning De Bono whether or not he had ever worked as a "physician" afer completing medical school and before embarking on his PhD and eventually making popular science writing his primary career. In order to earn the title "physician", it is necessary to regularly work as a medical practicioner. Equally, to earn the title "psychologist" it is necessary to have at least a readership if not a chair in the field of academic psychology. I would consider "author and broadcaster" to be more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.93.146.80 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I also have some problems with "physician" as it states - "he then gained a medical degree from the University of Malta. Following this, he proceeded as a Rhodes Scholar in 1955 to Christ Church, Oxford".
 * He would have been twenty two years old.
 * I believe that, as in the UK, Medicine is an undergraduate degree of five years duration in Malta. Therefore, unless he commenced his studies aged seventeen how could he qualify aged twenty two.
 * It does not add up !
 * Just an observation. 2A00:23C4:3AAE:1901:652E:D4F3:5E85:692C (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I propose merging Parallel thinking into Edward de Bono. The content in the former article can easily be covered in the latter article. De Bono came up with the concept of "Parallel thinking", and the concept is borderline notable. It makes no sense having a standalone article on the concept. A merge of any of the salvagable content from the former article would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in the latter.Thenightaway (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think merging would be a good idea. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Support merge, this term seems to be primarily associated with De Bono and there's not enough content on either page to justify a standalone article. Psychastes (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Parallel thinking is just promotional material for a neologism that failed to catch on. This is evident from the lead sentence and the references section. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 16:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)