Talk:Caballo de Troya

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

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)

It is in El Testamento de San Juan. A little note at the start. He says he got info from a revelation in the custody of Urantia Foundation. He does not mention the book. But this led many of his readers to eventually find and study the Urantia book. Both of the Spanish speaking trustees at Urantia Foundation today who come from Spain and Mexico found it thanks to Benitez's admission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.196.111.96 (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC)