Input on Diplomacy Novice Literature

This regards one of the items that I send in my initial broadcast after
a novice game starts. I'm using a game in progress to illustrate my
concerns, so please avoid specific tactical advice on the current
position until after it is no longer relevant. :-) 

This game shows the logical outcome of the Lepanto:

http://www.floc.net/observer/USAK/ns000004/ns0000040r.gif

By that I mean that Austria pulled off exactly what Edi wanted to do
when he first created the Lepanto.

The irony is that I cite the Lepanto specifically in my opening
broadcast as an example of how a set of strategy and tactics articles
should not necessarily be taken at face value: 


	Strategy and tactics articles:
	http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy.htm

		Please take this last resource with a grain of salt. The
	Lepanto Opening by Edi Birsan, for example, was invented to bait Italy
	into stretching himself too thin against his Austria. He never played
	the Lepanto as Italy. That's not to say that Italy shouldn't
	take the bait, only that he needs to read between the lines in
	negotiations with Austria as the opening progresses should he
	take that course. That's only an example. The fact of Diplomacy
	is that no plan ever survives contact with the enemy, and by
	enemy I mean your ally.

One of the first games where I use that wording, someone falls for a
trap that I specifically warn about. Is trying to provide a balanced
view a lost cause? Should I avoid mentioning any specific article? I
like the resource, but it requires critical reading skills that I
suspect to be missing or dormant in the majority of the general
population. What do you think is the best way to introduce this source? 

Chris