User talk:John61vermont

99 Degrees
I would much rather take the info out of the book than off the website, especially when you didn't cite where you got the info from on the site. Furthermore the Amazon blurb reads "A must read for fans of the "Da Vinci Code" and sequel." which concerns me if it is really a historical work. MSJapan (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More importantly, I took a look at the website and it does not discuss what you say it does. The book might (I have not read it yet, so I can only assume it does)... but the website does not.  It is important to be exact in citations, especially when it comes to potentially controvercial statements. Blueboar (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read the book and now I have added a page reference. I think it is important that wiki presents a ballanced view on subjects. Very few books give an insight into how the GOdF operate, Bro Klovekorns books does, which is why it is recommended by the GO of the US and Germany. Unfortunately sometimes people delete reference to this book as it is seen as advertising. I find this is bad, as for example, on the page 'the da vinci code and solomon key pages' several books are mentioned yet they are not deleted - why is this so?

Bro Klovekorns book is a non-fiction and well researched and provides rare insight into the new progressive obediences of freemasonry and ballances the arguments, this is why I think wiki should keep references to the book. John.


 * John... please cite the book properly. Author, title, publisher, date, page ref. ISBN number etc.  Linking to the website is not correct.  That website IS advertizing (it is a promotion for the book). More importantly, that website does not talk about the material you wish to add.  If the fact you wish to add is in the book... cite directly to the book. Blueboar (talk) 18:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Then remove the link to "the keys to dan browns the solomono key' because this is also advertising, its a tiny web page with links to the purchasing site for the book! How is this not advertising! Where is the consitency ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.194.83 (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the "Keys" site is written by an independant scholar who has lectured on the subject of Dan Brown's books and is hosted by a university website. The site also links to other websites that relate to the topic... not just to advertizing for books.  Most importantly, the site itself is not intended as a promotion for a book, while the one you want to link to is.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueboar (talk • contribs) 02:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these are differences, and I understand that it waters-down the advertising. But it is still advertising. I do not need to link to the authors web site, I can link to other sites that mention the book, I fail to see the difference as so significant, but ok. I am not in control of wiki, its just disappointing - seems like shades fo gray to me. I will link to the article within pietre stones freemasonry, a totally independent site.
 * Peitre-Stones is fine. Just make sure you cite Peitre-Stones and not the 99 degree website.Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Frankly, this is seriously getting out of hand - your only edits consist of trying to promote this book and adding it to articles where, most of the time, it doesn't belong. I'm frankly very skeptical of the research - you could claim that Knight and Lomas' books are "well-researched" because they have a lot of sources, but what kind of sources are being used is really the question.  To put it in different terms, would you consider a book that quoted Leo Taxil and Albert Pike (out of context) along with all the other disproven negative claims about Freemasonry in order to make a point that Freemasonry is evil to be a "well-researched" book, or is it only well-researched because you agree with it? MSJapan (talk) 14:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)