This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group. An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Spirituality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Women writers Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Anthropology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Women scientists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I don't see any reason why this article is in the category literary hoaxes. Perhaps there's a very good reason, but it does not seem to appear in the article. Phiwum (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no evidence the purported house of Don Juan mentioned or Don Juan Matus himself existed, and the stories told often contradict themselves. Sticky Parkin 02:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but it strikes me as odd to put it in the category and not discuss these allegations in the article. It's rather like putting Leonard Nimoy in the category Jewish Americans without mentioning his Jewish heritage in the text. (Actually, it's much more confusing than that. Most entries in the category of literary hoaxes are literary hoaxes. Taisha Abelar is not a literary hoax. She is a person.)

I suggest that the text be edited to at least mention that some people believe her book is a hoax. Phiwum (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Phiwum. There are a lot of author articles that carry the category of literary hoaxes, so there must be a lot of editors that consider it acceptable. Anyhow, I've added a comment to the article as you suggested. Mmyotis ^{(^^o^^)} 20:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this author has a Wikipage.

I find nothing notable enough to warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia. Also: Ref [1] leads to a 'hatchet' article which is primarily about a friend of the author and this referenced article uses unsubstantiated, unreliable and self-published data as its primary sources.

There is only one other source of reference, which is a book by Amy Wallace. Were I a cynic, I might think that the only reasons for the writing and posting of this article were to publicize Wallace's book and the previously-mentioned unsubstantiated Ref [1] article.

This page should be deleted. 2.98.196.255 (talk) 01:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit- NB I shall remove the 'External Links' section which has two unreliable sources: 1) 'Publishers' Weekly' which is a pay-for-review book promotion site; 2) 'Sustained Action', a self-published website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.196.255 (talk) 01:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Considering it is purportedly written later than the Sorcerers' Crossing it is really very unconvincing. Is this an exercise in deception, a stalking by a fan then? I propose that the link be removed as self published own research, as fan fiction. (based on internal inconsistencies and dodgy provenance).

PS The English language used, for instance, is quite appalling, and appears to have been translated from spanish, the author in the text making it clear that she can hardly order a margarita in that language, let alone hold a conversation or write a novel in it- by contrast the Spanish version is in impeccable Castilian. ¿Why would a gringa write Spanish so well and English so badly? IDK I'm going to remove the link

PPS There's some discussion of this by who apparently know far more about the ins and outs, the personalities and their shenanigans than i. Go ahead and restore the link if you can demonstrate this MS to be authentic. It reeks imao

PPPS Just been reading the S Crossing again, which really does read like fan fiction and if anything, is even less "convincing" than the MS, so whaddyaknow?

77.231.186.165 (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]