![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 10 November 2010. The result of the discussion was Redirect to Ouija#Criticism. |
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
-->
This is a valid and well sourced former section under of the article Ouija. In fact, this section had the most sources for the entire article. Dwain ( talk) 21:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, a page relating criticism is displaying POVs. But they are not an author's POV. You can't say that it only expresses the views of one group of people, as scientists, religious and occultists are all quoted. as such it does not violate NPOV, because these are three very disparate groups. Certainly, a section that documents some views that are all sourced by some important people should not be hidden. It used to be a part of the article called Ouija, but there were a bunch of anonymous editors that said this section should not be included wihin the article. I tried to put it back and it was deleted. The section of People who have used the Ouija Board was expanded and this one deleted. I understand that people don't want verifiable criticism concerning something they might like, but to just ignore the large amounts of criticism concerning something that some people call a game and others call an occult divice, the current article is ludicrous. It's actually awful. I don't think that a new article created from an old section that was up for literally years can now be considered breaking policy. Ouija Board Criticism should be a part of an article on the Ouija Board. There are loads of articles on Wikipedia that continue to other pages. Why is this one any different? It truly makes no sense to remove a factually written article that has sources. To dismiss this by saying that it is breaking NPOV, which it does not, is just plain suspect. Dwain ( talk) 01:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
As [1] is much improved, I'd support it being integrated back into the main Ouija article. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 23:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)