Talk:The Book on Mediums

Untitled

In have removed the link to The Spirits Book because it was misleading: people wanting to know The Book on Mediums would be directed to another book that, in spite of being related, was not the same. jggouvea 02:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Heads up on the comments

I'd argue that some of the comments in the "Contents" section are inappropriate for a wikipedia article.

Meanwhile, let's also tag this with "Missing Third-Party Sources"... BlowSky (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The Spirits` Book is necessary

hi friend... well, even Allan Kardec has recommended reading The Spirits` Book before The Book on Mediuns... and while reading the first isn`t obligatory for the understanding of the second, it is obviously recommended since The Spirits` Book does contain the foundation of a docrine that later would logically advocated in The Book on Mediuns

I also think that your argument wasn`t logic, because everyone who can read will see the distinguishable names in the two book, and the fact that The Spirits` Book is listed first isn`t a logical reason to annoy or difficult anyone who is wanting to download The Book on Mediuns. 201.10.14.142 12:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Link to Spiritist Codification

Jggouvea had a certain reason removing the link to The Spirits' Book. It's true that it's advisable that it is read first than The Mediums' Book. However, someone only interested in mediumship might indeed think that the link wasn't proper.

On the other hand, no one can deny that The Mediums' Book belongs to a series called the Spiritist Codification. So, I replaced the links to the articles on each book to one ponting to the article on Spiritist Codification. This way one may read about the whole series, know the order in which they were written and what issues each book deals with before deciding what to read.

I also removed the {{Expert}} notice considering that both point of view have been considered.

Renato Costa 12:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)