Talk:Caballo de Troya

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] not NPOV?

this bit seems a bit off: " Such pretension is ridiculous from the standpoint of Hard Science and of established disciplines as History, Anthropology, Archeology, Sociology, and Religion, to mention just a few, and reveals a deceitful strategy, a sales gimmick, presumably used to attract the attention of the reading public. Apparently, such strategy has succeeded so far." is that from a review? anyone have a cite? ++Lar: t/c 22:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I just put the POV tag for that reason. It seems to be a personal opinion. Ben ^T/_C 19:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Should be rewritten. --Lmsilva 04:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I eliminated the passages you found offensive and removed the tag. --Cesar Tort 05:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Listing the book in the hoax category seems a bit too much to me... Even considering that Benítez says most of it is based on true events, the series was always presented as a work of fiction, and the choice of believing or not in its content as if it was factual information is strictly the reader´s choice. Benítez may be a so-so writer, and a lunatic, but he´s not putting more effort to deceive anyone than, say, Dan Brown, who also claims that his historical research is kosher (and it´s not). - Felipe

[edit] URANTIA

someone has said to me that the author admitted he used urantia as a source... precisely in São João, a book written by him... I think in inside cover but cannot precice this... anyone can check? 201.10.22.243 11:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)