Talk:Ouija/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Ouija. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Was it really marketed to talk to dead soldiers? Is there any evidence of this? 2toise 12:03, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Fascinating article (to the general authors of it). In my school (Jewish) everybody seemed to think they were real... my Jewish Studies teacher almost implied it. If only they'de known about these studies...! r3m0t 13:27, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

These days you can even buy Ouija Board Mousepads! Most places have the traditional design we used to play with as kids. One place: CDAccess: Ouija. I want to get one and tell my workmates that sometimes my mouse moves all by itself, drag-and-dropping in a most diabolical way ... and late at night you hear it clicking all by itself .... ;-) Zuytdorp Survivor 23:06, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This page seems to not be NPOV. Actually, it looks like it confusingly alternates from one extreme belief to the other. Of course, it's hard to do much better with a subject like this. Maybe someone could do some clean-up. MardukZero 23:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree. This is a poorly written article that sounds like it was co-written by Jack Chick and the Skepitcal Enquirer. -Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.235.183.141 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 December 2004

I strongly agreed as well. What's more troubling is that some passages, such as 8th intro paragraph, that are state outright biased opinion as fact. Yet the very same paragraph reverts to the opposite view by its end. (So were they found guilty or not?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uly (talk • contribs) 11:54, 30 December 2004

Reworked and cleaned up the page. Deleted unsubstantiated items and things that were not relevent to the article. Also reformatted the whole page. I don't know what the hell 'directional drilling' is so I left that part fairly untouched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.89.235 (talk • contribs) 14:44-18:06, 28 January 2005

• just for info: directional drilling is where you can control the direction of the drill. Normally you can only drill straight down (with maybe some deflections of the occasional rock, but nothing controlled). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.60.71.117 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 February 2005

Looking at the history of this article, I see that POV seems to be a continuous issue. Quoting a huge chunk of text that is purely opinion is not appropriate to the article.

Having a section on books seems to be problematic. There are countless books on the subject of Ouija boards. It would be impractical to list them all and it is pointless to only include a few, especially if they all seem to have a specific (in this case, negative) POV. The same holds true with websites. I think it is important to not confuse anecdotal stories with facts in this situation.

I reverted to an older edit but then noticed to re-add the catergory that had been subsequently deleted since that seemed to be the only necessary edit. --Krash 00:15, 13 April 2005 (UTC)

You are showing your point of view when you remove anything that may reflect negatively on these boards. John Zaffis has had over 40 years experience in paranormal reseach he was trained by the most famous demonogists in the world. You should not be removing information put out by people who are experts in their fields. What is your experience with these boards? Puca 02:12, 13 April 2005 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with reflecting negatively. It should not be the scope of this article to condemn or condone the use of Ouija boards. Perhaps the beliefs section should be expanded into the pro/con belief sections and then include the skeptical (scientific) explanation. If there's going to be a representation from one side, there needs to be counterpoint from the other side. I'm not questioning John Zaffis's authority on the subject. However, as it is now, the last sentence of the third paragraph in the Beliefs section is redundant. The two sentences that were added to the skeptical paragraph are confusing and not relevent to the aim of the paragraph. Skeptics don't point out that anyone conjures spirits; they doubt that anyone can.

But I take biggest issue with the quotation by Martin Ebon. Why only quote him if we're going to be quoting those who are convinced that a toy is the gateway to evil? Then include Jack Chick and Malachi Martin too. And then we'd need James Randi, Michael Shermer, Martin Gardner and Penn&Teller from the skeptic side. And we'd also need to hear from some New Agers and Spiritualists who consult talking boards on a day-to-day basis like maybe Monte Farber, Amy Zerner, and Robert Murch. Perhaps listing these people as experts on the subject would be more productive than quoting them.

The books section does not seem necessary. The 2 books listed now present the subject as nothing but negative. As I said before, there are simply too many books about Ouija boards to attempt to compile a comprehensive, well-balanced list. There are resources for finding books of on the subject and I don't believe that this article should try to be one. The same is true with websites. At the very least they should be grouped according to "informational", "criticism", "positive", etc.--Krash 22:26, 13 April 2005 (UTC)

Krash nobody is stopping you from quoting these other people or adding books that extol the virtues of the use of ouija boards. But I think that a large portion of the internet reflects that there are very many negative things connected with using on of these "games". William Fuld himself won a court case in the early 1900's that the Ouija board was not a game but a spiritism device! So the founder of the Ouija board didn't sell them as games as Parker Brothers does. He even received the name of what to call the boards through the use of one. He is said to have consulted the board often regarding questions on his business. And by the way the book Ouija: The Most Dangerous Game, despite the title, it is not a book that just speaks negatively on the board. The quote seems perfect to me because it sums up what can happen which so many other people have also related. Instead of having to write a detailed paragraph on the dangers that are said can happen this author does so more succinctly. Puca 16:25, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay...let's take things one at a time here. The current edit is very good, and is addressed quite fairly. I think the Criticism section should be a subsection under Beliefs (in addition to a Skeptical subsection and a "Pro-Ouija"--I don't know what to call it--subsection). There are still some redundancies between the Beliefs and Criticism sections. Perhaps the second and third paragraphs under Beliefs should be merged with the Criticism section. The bits about skeptics claiming that cults use more advanced methods to summon demons has got to go. Can that at least be deleted?

I'm not quite sure if you're implying anything about my beliefs or if I'm just reading too deep into what you're saying. Either way, I'm not here to argue ideology. You needn't condesend, as I am fully aware that nothing is stopping me from posting here whatever I want. But my point is that with respect to this subject which has so many varying opinions/beliefs, it's important to treat these ideas as religious/spiritual viewpoints. Many people do not accept that spiritual possession even exists in the first place. That's what I've been hung up on all along.

I agree with your point on including the quotation. But I think it is difficult to read--the ellipsis (...) and the various "quoted" words/phrases do not strike me as being stylistically appropos. Whom is he quoting in these instances? It seems like a very sophomoric and poorly-edited quotatation. I don't have the book on hand to check the source and I don't feel qualified to make any adjustments to the same. I believe that paraphrasing would make more sense here.

I'm certainly not convinced that "a large portion of the internet reflects that there are very many negative things connected with using on of these 'games,'" as you put it. A Google search lands more than 10 websites before you come to the Amazon listing of "Most Dangerous...". Then there are more than 10 websites before you get to the first one that presents in a negative light. Actually, I'm having a difficult time finding many negative sites at all. It would seem that the majority of the websites simply present some facts muddled with beliefs and some "ghost-story-like" stories. The fact that there are so many anecdotal websites leads me to believe that many should be just left out. Same with books. But let me stress that as it is edited now, I have no problem with the current inclusion of the books or websites.

It was Charles Kennard, not Fuld, who named the board and it must be mentioned that the story surrounding such is purely speculative. I can't speak for Mr. Fuld and his ideas about Spiritualism, however his company did sell other toys and novelties, but oddly enough, no other paranormal items. I will say that it would not have been very good business practice for him to dismiss his best-selling item as a hoax, so it's difficult to say anything at all about his true opinions of the Ouija board or Spirituality. --Krash 20:59-22:42, 14 April 2005 (UTC)

Removed the phrase "A true businessman" from "Fuld sued..." Whose POV is it that a "true businessman" sues a lot of people? --Henrybaker 04:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I edited the skeptical section and I think it is more or less ok now, as long as "Scientific" and "Ideomotor Effect" are mentioned then I am happy as those who want to know what science has to say about it will get a couple of clues. Unfortunately the article still has a lot of Original Research and wording which does not maintain a true NPOV or encyclopedic standard, but overall it is not that bad. There is plenty of room to expand it, but please try to stay within the encyclopedic spirit. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 00:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, Ouija is a genericized trademark, but under genericized trademarks on the wikipedia, it is not listed.

Further, http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Genericized_trademark lists it as a trademark in generic usage, but it is not in their list of generic trademarks. Does anyone definitively know? Thanks, Joel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.243.128.238 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 9 June 2005

I am under the impression that it is technically not genericized and that Parker Bros continues to retain the trademark. However, the word is often used generically. Hopefully the current edit will reflect this. -- Krash 14:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When a movie producer decides to import some or all of the look and feel generally associated with an easily identifiable trademark, she often (or, in fact, usually) goes to great lengths to secure legal permission (in writing) to do so. (But there comes a point where she can go no further, and at that point obtains insurance coverage for the inadvertent use of a trademark she had no intention of using.) Does anybody know of any past lawsuits involving the trademark "Ouija?" If somebody has access to Westlaw or Lexis, or an online search engine with access to Words and Phrases, have there been any references to the word "Ouija?" Offhand, I seem to remember a case in the Court of Claims between 1865 and 1899 where the US Government attempted to confiscate (perhaps by charging too high of a tariff?) the import of yarrow sticks (for use as divination sticks with the I Ching oracle), but I am not sure where I saw it. Sometimes you find these references where you least expect them. For instance, check Westlaw and Lexis for planchette if you can't find it under "Ouija".198.177.27.28 19:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether something is a "genericized trademark" or a "trademark which is often used generically" is a ludicrous distinction. It's like saying, that object isn't a can opener, it's an object designed to open cans. I'm NOT over-simplifiying; read the "genericized trademark" definition in the Wikipedia article if you disagree. The criteria cited below, that Parker Brothers still retains the trademark, is completely irrelevant; Band-Aid and Kleenex are still retained as trademarks, and they are prime examples of genericized trademark. Unless someone can explain the distinction, I'm changing it back. Minaker 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Something is a "genericized trademark" if a court has ruled that the term has become so widespread and generic as to be no longer sevicable as a trademark. As such, the "Ouija" hasn't actually become one yet - unless someone has a source somewhere that says it has. --Davémon 19:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition of "genericized trademark" has no such legal criteria; nowhere does it say that that a trademark becomes genericized only if a court rules it to be so. Rather, a genericized trademark is a social construct. As the "genericized trademark" article says, "genericized trademark, generic trade mark, generic descriptor, or proprietary eponym, is a trademark or brand name that has become the colloquial or generic description for or synonymous with a particular class of product or service." Under these terms, Ouija definitely qualifies. This very article is the perfect example; it is titled "Ouija" but it actually discusses spirit boards in general, because it is understood that people looking for information about spirit boards would use the genericized trademark term rather than the less familiar generic term; more people would understand the term "Ouija board" than the generic terms "talking board" or "spirit board." Do you have some sort of source that supports your claim that the term "genericized trademark" is more a matter of legal definition than social phenomenon? If so, then you should quote it and change the "genericized trademark" article to reflect this information. If not, then I refer you to my above comments about "genericized trademark" or a "trademark which is often used generically" being a ludicrous distinction that makes no sense whatsoever. Minaker 09:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The question really should be "are there any reliable sources that say 'Ouijah' is considered to be a generic trademark by either definition ?" --Davémon 20:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, in tried and true Wikipedia fashion, I see we are abandoning common sense for the sake of technicalities. Google "Ouija" and you'll see that virtually every site falls under one of three categories: Either it uses the "Ouija" in a generic sense, it goes to the trouble to remind the reader that it SHOULDN'T be used in the generic sense, or it points out that "Ouija" is a specific trademark that is often used generically. Now, the COMMON SENSE conclusion is that, in our culture, the trademarked term "Ouija" is more often than not used in the generic sense, and is therefore, BY DEFINITION, a genericized trademark. However, I'll admit that Wikipedia rules forbid use of this information, since to cite the sources en masse would count as original research, while any one of the sites individually would probably not bear scrutiny under the "reliable source" criteria. Honestly, I understand the reasons for these rules, I really do, but sometimes they just fly in the face of logic. The ultimate point of Wikipedia is to provide information, but when an article mentions that the sky is blue and somebody says "well where's the reliable source that says it's blue?" . . . that's when I start throwing my hands up in frustration. Still, I want to play fair, so I'll stop by the library this weekend, to find a more reliable source than a Google search. Minaker 07:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Third Party Opinion - Initiated

The article mentions that while "Ouija" is a registered trademark (genericized or not), "Ouija board" has been abandoned in attempts for trademarking. It's conceivable that when people refer to Ouija, they refer to a Ouija board, and are merely shortening the term.

That being said, when it comes to daily life, no one cares whether a term is officially generecized by a court order, but when copyright issues are involved, such as on Wikipedia, these things unfortunately matter. If it can be substantiated that generecized trademark requires legal backing, this issue will follow. That being said, if it cannot be substantiated, this issue may still require modification based on a potential copyright infringement. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but this third opinion seems to completely miss the point of what it's supposed to be resolving. Davemon and I have no disagreement over whether the term should be "Ouija" or "Ouija board"; the disagreement is over whether the term "Ouija" (which, one should assume, includes the variation "Ouija board") qualifies as a genericized trademark, and whether Davemon's request for a reliable source is warranted. Maybe you should re-read the above comments, or the original third party opinion request. Minaker 11:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Good idea to list it at WP:3O - can you provide a link to it's entry, I can't see it?

I think for the dispute to be laid to rest we need to establish several things:

1. What is the correct definition of "genericized trademark"? i.e. is it a:

1. TM that has had it's status as a trademark removed by a court because it was found to be used generically (my opinion), OR
2. TM that some people think is used in a general way often enough but still retains its status as a trademark (Minakers opinion)...
3. What sources (if any) are we using to decide that.

1. Does "Ouija" fulfill that criteria of definition?

1. If so... what sources (if any) are we using to decide that.

Minaker - if I've misrepresented your opinion, please feel free to edit the line which descibes it.

The actual "problem" that I see we are resolving is if someone released a game and called it "Ouija" - are Parker Bros entitled to take them to court for trademark infringement or not? Saying "Ouija" is a genericized trademark (i.e. has been subject to legal genericide) would make them think they were OK to use the word, and thus the article would be misleading. Alternatively, they may well be free to use it, and just saying Ouija is TM'd would be equally misleading. --Davémon 13:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I apologize for not going to the library as I said I would; the library in my home town was closed for the Labor Day weekend. Second, someone removed my request from the third opinion request page; I don't know why, and just assumed that requests are removed after they've been up for a few days, although the removal seemed awfully fast to me. Davemon: I must admit, I am completely confused about where you came up with the legal criteria for the definition. I am basing my use of the term "genericized trademark" both on my original understanding and on Wikipedia's article and definition of the term, which describes it as a social phenomenon. Maybe we could clear this whole matter up if you told me where you got the information that the term is correctly applied only if a court has ruled it so.

There seems to be even further misunderstanding. I do not claim that under EITHER definition of the term can a commercial manufacturer other than Parker Bros. create a spiritual board called "Ouija." You've correctly summarized my general understanding of the term at first, but then, if I understand your concluding paragraph correctly, you imply that "my" definition of the term leads to the conclusion that, if the term "Ouija" has become genericized, another commercial game manufacturer could release a game and also call it "Ouija." That is not my position at all! Let me clarify my position by using a more mainstream example: People commonly use the term "Kleenex" to mean "facial tissue," regardless of whether the tissues are actually Kleenex brand, manufactured by KCW. My argument is that because the generic term and the trademarked specific term are commonly used interchangably, the term "Kleenex" has become a genericized trademark, by my (and Wikipedia's) definition of the term. However, that does NOT mean another company can manufacture tissues and call them "Kleenex"! The trademark's protection is LEGAL, and thus has legal consequences. The trademark's genericization (not sure if that's a word, but you know what I mean) is SOCIAL. Sorry to beat a dead horse, so to speak, if you already understood that this was my argument, but there did seem to be confusion over this issue.

I want to point out again that the article on "Ouija," as currently written, is based on my definition. It delves into the entire history of spiritual boards, because the article is based on the understanding that when people look up the term "Ouija," they are thinking of the generic use of the word, and not necessarily a specific brand of talking board. Minaker 18:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

One thing - if a TM has been subject to legal "genericide", then it would be perfectly OK for a commercial manufacturer to use the word as a product name - as it's status is declared "dead". Either way, the Third Opinion given wasn't too helpful, and (again) I think our core disagreement is whether "genericized trademark" as a term has a specific legal implication, or a purely a colloquial use. However, finding actual sources that give any actual definition is proving nearly impossible. I'm not sure if you would agree to the move or not, but it might be a better idea to take this discussion to the generic trademark page to get consensus. --Davémon 19:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

(sigh) I think my August 28th comments say it all, but to address your latest comments, it sounds to me like you're erroneously equating the concepts of genericized trademark and genericide. The Wikipedia article on genericized trademarks draws the distinction: For the legal implications of genericide to take effect, the would-be owner of the trademark must have (perhaps inadvertantly) forfeited their protective rights over the trademark by failing to protect it in the past. I could again refer you to the Wikipedia article on genericized trademarks, which, as I've pointed out, does not use any legal criteria to define the "genericized trademark" concept. I'd also refer you to the website of attorney Dana B. Taschner (http://www.danataschner.com/trademark_genericized.html), who defines a genericized trademark as "a trademark or brand name which has become synonymous with a particular type of product or service, to the extent that it often replaces the formal term for the product or service in colloquial usage." This definition directly addresses the issue of whether it is a term of colloquial use. As explained in the following paragraph on that website, genericide is a POTENTIAL legal implication of a trademark becoming genericized, but the two concepts are not one and the same. Does this guy count as a reliable source? I honestly don't know, but if he is, his site clearly backs what I've been saying all along. Minaker 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source and we should take it's defintions of terms with a pinch of salt (especially when they are unsourced).

If you read the source you provided above [1] beyond the first paragraph quoted he goes on to say:

"Although many well known trademarks are often used in a generic manner, it does not necessarily follow that such trademarks have become 'genericized', particularly if the marks continue to fulfill the trademark function, and the mark owners maintain and enforce their rights."

He's making a clear disctinction between the two concepts: using the word "'genericized'" to identify the legal-status concept and contrast it against "used in a generic manner" with which he is deonting the colloquial concept. I agree he might not be a wholly reliable source (he is a lawyer, so probably not), but he seems to be supporting my view on the correct use of the word "genericized". --Davémon 18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I read the whole page, but I somehow missed the point of that particular paragraph. How? I don't know, just a dumb mistake on my part, I guess. You're right, that paragraph seems to support your view. I yield. Minaker 23:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the sentance back to the "trademark which is often used generically" version. I'm still not 100% happy with the wording, nor the fact that there really don't seem to be good sources which define the terms. --Davémon 17:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reworded the paragraph at the end of the "How is it done" section (recently added by 195.93.21.34), as it didn't seem to fit with the balanced tone of the rest of the article. Original moved here.

'It is interesting to note that communicating with spirits using a ouiji board is very dangerous. Firstly you do not know with whom you are talking with if you recieve a communcation therefore you may end up contacting something not so pleasent that you may not have wanted to have contacted in the first place.It presents a danger to those who do not know of such things. That is not a superstition. Today there are many other possibilties for finding out about such things as "spirits" or such things as "readings" to discover something about yourself or to find answers to questions you have rather than trying something that has never had in its history any real results of any benefit. Modern day seances do not use them.'

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobstay (talk • contribs) 12:23, 6 September 2005

It is religious critics who are warning us of ghosts and the like. I doubt that atheist/agnostic critics of talking boards are too worried about this. Smiloid 03:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an error in the first sentence, ouija is not a beief, but is an object. A lot of the 'facts' are unproven, and this article does not provide enough discussion on how or why the ouija gained its malevolent character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.58.77 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 May 2006

I might also add that most books written about the ouija board are heavily biased, and much of it totally rubbish, and not worthy as reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.58.77 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 19 May 2006

Few people who have investigated Ouija boards from a skeptical viewpoint accept that a piece of cardboard sold as a game can conjure spirits, evil or benevolent

Really? Is it the cardboard that makes the difference? Because I've seen plenty boards that are made out of wood. Would it be safe to say that skeptics believe these versions to be real since they're not made out of cardboard? Or is it just saying that such a cheap material couldn't possibly summon such power? Because I'd like to know the quality of material something has to be before it's possible for it to contain any sort of magical ability. You know, because it's obviously what the material is made out of instead of what it represents. --71.112.0.150 13:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This article says that talking board were first used in the mid 19th century. I've read another source that date them back 4th century Roman empire, or even before Christ in Greece.

Link is here: http://www.crystalinks.com/ouija.html

I don't know if the site is accurate or not. Have you ever read anything about this before? If so, maybe it should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.109.177.107 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 25 May 2006

The bottom two links are very...opinionated, to say the least! Does anyone else think they should be replaced with something a little less accusatory? --Marysunshine 01:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and check out the url of the second-to-last link. My inclination would be to remove links that lead to web sites whose urls contain misspellings, but I just wandered in here out of curiosity and have no wish to start an edit war. It occurs to me that some Wikipedians may be mistaking the NPOV objective with a rather different objective wherein concepts such scientific rigor and hard evidence are deemed no more valid than anecdote and dogma. This doesn't bode well for Wikipedia's being taken seriously as a reference work. Rivertorch 07:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone ever had an experience where an ouija board has worked? El benderson 00:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, once in a party I joined some friends, to take the piss out of it, and to my surprise it said I had to be kicked out of the group :-) Cgonzalezdelhoyo 01:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, The ouija works. I hate people who think they are a hoax. Ouijalover 17:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ouija boards are very dangerous!!! Do not, I repeat, do not even try using them! I am still dealing with a haunting caused by using a stupid board. Don't be fooled by these occultists who say that there are safe ways to use them. The things contacted on the board pretend to be dead relatives, famous people and "good" spirits. But in fact, they are all malevolent. Punker57 14:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Punker57 is very wrong. A Ouija IS HARMLESS IF USED PROPERLY. They are only dangerous if you abuse them. And not listing to the comand of a demonic spirit will also screw you. Other than that they are harmless. Ouijalover 00:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just listen to what you said ouijalover!!! NOT LISTENING TO THE COMMAND OF A DEMONIC SPIRIT WILL ALSO SCREW YOU!!! are you kidding? it's good to be at the mercy of another's will? which you even admit is demonic???? I mean, how can you pretend that is harmless, clearly you are playing with fire here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.175.242 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 20 July 2007

You obviously don't know what you are talking about! You are very misguided. You are talking to demons when you use the board! Of course, someone with the name Ouijalover you must be heavily invovled in the occult. For the rest of you here is a case that is similar to what happened to me. DO NOT USE OUIJA BOARDS! I was used a Ouija Board because I thought it was harmless. I would get things that joked and wrote poetry. These things that seemed so harmless and fun are called demons! Little did I know. There is no reason for anyone to use a ouija board or to dabble in the occult. There is no safe way to use a Ouija Board that is a lie! Punker57 15:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I do know what i am talking about. I am a medium. I talk to the dead. I also enjoy the ouija. The only way to safely use them is to obey the orders of the demonic spirits. If you do this they wont hurt you. in my experience i have also learned that avoiding them will also get the demons to attack you. Ouijalover 02:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ouijalover, you admit it, you are just a tool and a fool. Anyone who wants to obey anything they can't even comprehend is foolish beyond belief. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.114.175.242 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 20 July 2007

I dont get it ouijalover..why use the ouija board, if your going to have to obey the orders of a demonic spirit ? Ramos2907 20:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, I feel energies. The ouija boards give off strong negative energy. DO NOT trust them in the least. Usually my energy sensing isn't that wrong about natures of objects and people. 162.83.82.248 22:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC) A guest who doesn't like them

yes they work me and my bro bought one and we used it with evryone in the house there where problay 50 diffrent spirts that talked to us on the first day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.22.131 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 24 April 2007

Why center on "skeptics"? Someone who doesn't accept at first hand that spirits exists is an skeptic? I'd rather say he or she is "rational" or "scientific". Furthermore, "spirits, evil or benevolent" is a myth in as far as they have not been shown to exist.

Now, the strength of the statement seems to lie on that some "skeptics", who have investigated, have accepted the use of ouija to conjure spirits. This is true, but what is the value of such statement without mentioning some of these cases, as the worth of such is only as anecdotes, i.e. if a famous physicist says that God the creator exists, it is testimonial to his beliefs and attitudes but does not provide any other information.

Finally, saying "spirits, evil or benevolent" seems extremely childish in as far as spirits have not been shown to exist and are part of popular folklore.

So I would edit the sentece as follows "Few people who have investigated Ouija boards accept that it conjure spirits". However, without citing examples, and there are some good ones, it lacks any encyclopedic value.

I will edit the section accordingly, with minor additional edits. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 01:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Another deleted sentence

"In some instances, users of talking boards have communicated with "ghosts" of people who were not dead, as demonstrated by the British mentalist Derren Brown in his 2004 television special Derren Brown: Séance."

This does not belong in the scientific point. Furthermore the statement is incorrect as it has not been "demonstrated" that anyone has ever talked with ghosts, not in a scientific way.

Beliefs, knowledge and scientific method.

Knowledge is a very elusive concept, as Popper showed. The best we can hope for is to draw a theory and make an unexpected testable prediction. If such a prediction is correct it does not definitely prove the theory right, but it is the closests we can ever hope to get. However, thow scientist do not claim to absolut truth, they do not "belief" in their theories, rather they trust and accept them as the best understanding.

For a comprehensive approach we should reserve "belief" for faith and avoid trying to endow scientific views with such.

Please understand that science is the application of a particularly well stablished method, the scientific method, which is rather simple in as far as it rellies on testing hypothesis with observational experiments that can be reproduced by others. If anything, the strength of the scientific method lies in being free of bias.

Conclusion

The ouija board has been studied scientifically and conclusions have been reached, mainly that it is the result of particular phenomenae known as the "ideomotor effect". Those who contest the evidence in a non scientific way are myth believers and their experiences and resoning cannot be taken but at face value, as anecdotical.

As a final example, there is a "historical" Jesus who posibly lived and died around 0 bc and a religous Jesus, who, depending on which faith you read, was profet or God itself. An encyclopedic article would include a section on the historical evidence as well as describing the perceptions by different faiths. Cgonzalezdelhoyo 01:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

"What makes the pointer move? An effect similar to that which occurs in dowsing, known as the ideomotor effect. This is a fancy name for involuntary/unconscious movement, such as a dowser's hand flicking enough to move his stick when he passes over an area he knows has water. (In fact, Cecil has discussed this very subject.) The basic point is that your muscles can move without your consciously thinking, "move to the word YES." As the Skeptics Dictionary says, "suggestions can be made to the mind by others or by observations. Those suggestions can influence the mind and affect motor behavior. What is purely physiological, however, appears to some to be paranormal." In other words, if you believe this stuff and are trying to get the spirits to answer questions proving that they are all-knowing, and you ask a question that you already know the answer to (for example, "What's my father's name?"), odds are that your own hands will do the rest by spelling out your answer. That's where trying it blindfolded comes in (provided you haven't memorized the board, obviously). If it's spirits, they should be able to guide your hands no matter whether you can see or not. But if it's you doing it unconsciously, the blindfold will screw things up."

Idiots, the only reason why there are 'spirits' haunting you is because of the fact your emotions and mind believe so and make you scared, therefore that is why you feel as the ouija board works.

..sigh morons these days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.76.96.93 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 9 August 2006

one day me and 2 friends and my friends mother wanted to play with a oijia board... well we did and the "spirits" name was o.u.i. we asked so many questions about who we would marry and our futures. the next day we played again and i talked to my gr8 grandmother... im not sure if it was her or not but then later that day we saw a sign on a church bulliton that said "read psalms not palms" we were all kinda weirded out by that but we couldnt resist, we played for fun just once more. turns out we contacted a bad spirit. it said "come find me" ... sence then i have never looked at a oijia board again i found out later that the last time was all my friend tho but as for the rest, there REAL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashley32 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 September 2006

I hope you won't be silly enough to use one again. The things you get on Ouija Boards are actually demons, they are liars, they hate us and they are evil! You most certainly weren't talking to you great grandmother and I think your seeing the church flyer sayig "read psalms not palms" was a more than subtle hint for you to take that advice. There is no "safe" way of using a Ouija Board and there is no "good" reason for using one. They are real that's what makes them so DANGEROUS! :) Take care Ashley32! Dwain 20:51, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you must have a lack of time on you hands. I think we may need a tag that says this talk page is not for disussion on the subject, but fo improving the article.  Daniel_123  ► ► 15:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I created a page for this discussion. --Monkey 13! 00:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how whenever someone claims something is real, they always come out with the cliche argument that 'my friends did it' or 'my friend's mom saw one' or 'some guy told me so'? There is never bonafide proof. I'm surprised these people have even heard of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.50.7 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 18 January 2007

Its a ****ing game! And notice how alot of "paranormal experts" says its dangerous? They are crazy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.201.174.176 (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

To discuss opinions about Ouija boards, go to User:Monkey13/Ouija --Monkey 13! 00:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

as for ouija boards in popular culture: morrissey has a song called 'ouija board, ouija board' on his almub 'bona drag' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.59.74.145 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 10 October 2006

Thanks for the info. Feel free to add it to the popular culture section. (Please be sure to capitalize and use spell check.) Rivertorch 21:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the last paragraph in the section Criticism of Ouija Boards back to include a paragraph that I wrote which was deleted by another user (see paragraph below). I feel that the POV there is a bit biased as it favors a particular religous slant. The paragraph and link citation that has been added, removed and then added again at the end of the section is this:

"Critics counter that "The Exorcist" is a work of fiction based on a case where recent research has cast serious doubt as to its actual authenticity. An in-depth investigation conducted by researcher Mark Opsasnick has revealed that the original story was in fact more than likely a complete hoax." (Includes link to cite article).

I also deleted a link that points to a discussion of "Christian views on witchcraft" as I feel that it is not at all relevant to the discussion of Ouija boards.

I would like to have the opinion of other Wikipedia users as to whether or not you feel that my paragraph should remain in that section and if the link was unnecessary. Thanks. Labyrinth13 16:12-17:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The link wasn't relevant. I restored the paragraph in question several days ago, but it was immediately deleted again without explanation by the person who deleted it in the first place. If the Blatty book or the film refers to Ouija, then it's relevant. I think it needs one more "alleged", however, and will add that now. (It's possible that the paragraph would also fit in the popular culture section. The film has become a cultural icon.) Rivertorch 17:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely that references to "The Exorcist" and Ouija boards is relevant to the discussion. My only concern was that the text there seems to imply that the case on which "The Exorcist" book and film are based was a real event and not a fictional one that new research seems to prove. Thank you for your input and help on this. Labyrinth13 17:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your obvious bias is included in your paragraph, which can easily be solved by removing any mention of the Exorcist which this article is not about. But you don't want to remove the mention do you? It is obvious that you want your link in there, which of course proves you bias. Dwain 00:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dwain: I would be perfectly happy with removing all mention of The Exorcist from that section (including the link as it appears already in the entry for The Exorcist). So shall we agree to do that? Please let me know by tomorrow morning. Be advised: If I don't hear from you one way or the other by then, I intend to revert the article back to include my paragraph and to place a dispute tag on the section. Thanks. Labyrinth13 01:46-01:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

One Last Thing: Please be advised that I also intend to start editing all of the other parts in the entire Ouija section as I feel there is too strong of an emphasis on Christianity and on how Christians feel about Ouija boards; that sort of obvious bias should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. (If we allow a Christian bias/slant to articles, then we would have to include a Muslim, Jewish, Wicca, Hindu, etc. point of view, but you can see where that would lead and I'm sure you would be offended by that). Thanks, again. Labyrinth13 01:46-01:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As it stands now, there is no reference to The Exorcist. Dwain 02:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That works for me. Labyrinth13 02:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and placed a POV-section tag on this section. Labyrinth13 15:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Below is one paragraph that I feel needs additional rewriting work in order to balance out the POV.

Many Christians hold the belief that using a Ouija board allows communication with demons, which is Biblically forbidden as a form of divination. Some people who claim to have been oppressed by evil spirits after using a board say that they could only get rid of these problems after Christian deliverance. Many Christians believe that no dead person's soul can be summoned, and that the only summoned spirits are demons who are trying to harm humans.

• In the opening line, the words Many Christians has been changed from Many people, and that is an improvement on this sentence and upon consideration of that change, the words Biblically forbidden now better reflects that this is that religion's particular beliefs about Ouija boards.

• In the second line the statement that says that some people believe that the only way to get rid of evil spirits is to seek Christian deliverance should be changed to reflect that it is primarily Christians themselves who believe that their religion is the only way to remove evil spirits caused by use of Ouija boards.

• The last sentence would then read better after making the changes suggested in the second line above.

About the only other thing that I see at present that would justify keeping the section dispute tag in place may lie with questions as to whether or not the cited sources for this particular section might be too heavily biased in some way.

Your input and opinions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Labyrinth13 17:13-17:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see "some people" as a problem, inasmuch as Christians are, by definition, "some people", and the rest of the sentence pretty well puts it into context. Changing it to "Christians themselves" would actually be more problematic because Christianity is enormously diverse and many Christians do not share the stated views.

I take issue with only two things in this section now. The first is the sentence, "Many Christians hold the belief that using a Ouija board allows communication with demons, which is Biblically forbidden as a form of divination." I am going to amend that to reflect that the last clause is correct according to certain interpretations of the Bible. As it stands now, it is hopelessly POV because not all people interpret the Bible that way. The second problem is the mention of "noted American demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren". I believe a qualifier observing that the Warrens are considered by many people—including self-professed psychics, paranormal researchers, and Christians, as well as scientists—to be charlatans. There are ample citations for that, but I just don't have the time to find them at present (and frankly am a trifle leery of stirring that pot). Rivertorch 22:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rivertorch: The part that you have amended reads very well now and in my opinion, represents a much better NPOV. Nice work.

As far as a qualifier is concerned re the mention of Ed and Lorraine in this section, you may want to check out the Criticisms section of the Warren's Wikipedia entry. I posted a similar quailfier there a few weeks ago that might be along the lines of what you are looking for. However, like you, I am leery of "stirring this pot" here, too and actually have no real problem with the way the Warren mention reads. Labyrinth13 22:36-22:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading Labyrinth13's above comments and reason as to why he wants to argue in this article that the book The Exorcist was based on "a fictional" event and claims that it is proven so sounds like he doesn't want people to be led to believe in this mumbo jumbo. But in reality he really does believe in the mumbo jumbo or Ouija boards because he is a New Ager. He states so right here on his Wikipedia page. This further exposes his bias. He wants people to believe that exorcism is a fiction and that using Ouija boards can't be harmful. Like it or not the rite of exorcism was used. The boy did exist and he did use a Ouija board and he did have problems and was taken to St. Louis. People can interpret the incident as they like but to imply that the boy, the board, and the performance of exorcism was just inveted is not just misleading it is a lie. He can argue the case and include his link under a article concerning the book or movie but to try to argue that case here in this article is totaly disingenuous! Dwain 01:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dwain: I must admit that I have a hard time understanding what you are trying to say above, mostly because I feel that you don't express yourself with thoughts that run along logically enough for me at times. Sorry. But I think I can answer part of your fears here: True, I am a New Ager, and yes, I regularly use Ouija boards, but I disagree that such a fact would constitute a bias, but rather, that this actually qualifies me as one who has genuine expertise and knowledge of the subject of Ouja boards. I am sorry that you are hurt by the fact that The Exorcist case has been proven to be based on false premises and/or has been proven to have been blown out of proportion by over-zealous Christians and the media, so I suggest that we just agree to remove all reference to it and be done with it (provided that no one else has a problem, of course). Thanks. Labyrinth13 01:57-02:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have used a ouija board too so conversely if this would make you some sort of expert on its use then it should make me an expert as well, unfortunately our experiences aren't relevent because they would constitute "original research" which is not allowed here at Wikipedia. And I am not hurt by that article which you take as some sort of proof. I read the article some years ago and although some of the research is comendable he proves nothing, he gives his opinion of what happened. I love your rant against Christianity you obviously feel threatened by it. Dwain 02:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with your assessment of the Opsasnick article because a careful reading shows that the Exorcist case was almost 99.9 percent fraud. The boy in the case was known by both friends and neighbors to have been a hoaxer. (The primary people convinced that demons were involved were the exorcists themselves and they can hardly be thought of as impartial sources). But I can see how it threatens your personal beliefs about the case and so we can just agree to disagree and I will leave you to your fears. FYI: I don't feel threatened by any religion, but I do dislike those followers of religions who try to force their religious beliefs on others. As mentioned, I plan to take a hard look at the whole Ouija board article in the coming days and plan to take steps to remove as much of the religious bias as I can. I'm glad we could work this out together and thanks. Labyrinth13 02:27-02:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

According to William Peter Blatty, the author of The Exorcist, the book was inspired by events that apparently took place in 1949 involving a supposed possession and exorcism—it was not based on those events and is a complete work of fiction. As to what exactly happened in 1949, that is a matter of opinion and cannot (and should not) be resolved on any Talk page (not even the Exorcist one). Dwain seems correct in drawing a distinction between the events of the book/film and the events that inspired the book/film. As I suggested earlier, Labyrinth's paragraph, perhaps with a judicious edit or two to make that distinction clear, seems appropriate for inclusion in the Popular Culture section of the article. Most importantly, a Wikipedia editor's religious or spiritual beliefs should be irrelevant to the editing process, and citing them as the explanation for perceived bias can only constitute a gratuitous personalization of the argument. Bias on certain issues cuts both ways, but decently NPOV articles are possible if all parties recognize their own biases and stick to debating the content itself, not why someone wrote it. Rivertorch 04:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Rivertorch - Thanks for your input above. Pitchka and I seem to have reached an agreement here on taking the paragraph out of the Ouija article, but if you want to clean it up and place it elsewhere, please feel free to do so. You wrote, a Wikipedia editor's religious or spiritual beliefs should be irrelevant to the editing process, and citing them as the explanation for perceived bias can only constitute a gratuitous personalization of the argument. I totally agree with that statement and I feel that I honestly try to not insert my own beliefs into any Wikipedia article. However, in some of my only edits so far, I have tried to add balance to sections where I see a completely one-sided statement. In the Ouija article now, I see what I personally believe is a strong slant toward a fundamentalist Christian view of why Ouija boards are bad and bad for you! As a result, I am going to suggest here that someone place a "dispute" tag on the "Criticism of Ouija boards" section until such time as the article is rewritten and cleaned up. Your thoughts would be appreciated, as would your advice to a relative newbie about how I go about placing the section into dispute. Thank you. Labyrinth13 13:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Everything in the section of criticism of the ouija board can be sourced and is accurate. So far there is only one editor who has a major problem with the section. He complains because Christians are mentioned. I have added the views of occultists/psychics, paranormal researchers/demonologists, doctors, a clergy member and a person of Jewish ancestry.

His apparent bigotry of anything Christian and what critics who may happen to be Christian is just plain misguided. Fortunately he seems to be in the minority. The section as it stands now has many more criticisms from a variety of people with different points of view and outlooks. I will defend this section because it is the best sourced section in the whole article and because it is not biased or point of view. I would welcome the beliefs of what Muslims, Hindus, American Indians believe about the Ouija board if such information could be found and if it is relevent to the article at hand.

The problem is not with this section but with Labyrinth13's intorence and distaste for Christianity, unfortunately the quotes and information are from qualified people whether Christian or not. Dwain 17:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel that your posting of this sort of message is simply a mean-spirited, personal attack on me and that it should be removed as inappropriate.

I have read your latest changes to the section in question and actually believe that you have done a good job with the rewrite and with only minor exceptions, now feel that the dispute tag should be considered for removal.

I understand that you have strong feelings about Christianity and like to promote Christian views and I applaud you for standing by your beliefs. However, that you infer a bigotry on my part simply because I question your neutrality is untrue, unfair, and completely unnecessary in a such a forum as this. (My complaint about your work was not simply that Christians were mentioned, but rather that you often seemed to be promoting singular ideas about Christianity in relation to Ouija board use. I was and am simply trying to correct what I saw as seeming bias on your part and from what I can tell, you have managed to do that and the article now better reflects the neutral standards that Wikipedia expects. For that I applaud your efforts.

But while I appreciate you doing the work that you have done so far, I am very dissappointed to see that you feel you need to attack me personally. Labyrinth13 18:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not the one who started suggesting personal bias you did when you complained about me on your talk page to another Wikipedian. You are the one who has been labeling me and making statements that I'm "hurt" and suggesting that the criticism section reflects fudamental Christian writing.

You have obviously been very disturbed about Christianity for some reason. You accuse me of trying to promote my beliefs here on this article which is false. I'm simply adding what I believe to be valid information into the article I and added criticism that I was able to find not by peoples beliefs or religious makeup.

So before you act the victim here you have to remember that you cast the first stone at me on your talk page. I am simply responding to what you have had to say about me and about the article and you cannot deny that your opposition to Christianity is what is motivating your problem with that section. My motivation is not to put a Christian view across in relation to Ouija board use. My motivation is to find relative and accurate criticism by people who have had dealings with Ouija boards. I am not part of some vast Christian conspiracy. Dwain 20:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I am sorry that you were offended by my casual comment about you (which for the record, I deny completely was anywhere near like what you are implying above; I simply commented that I could tell you were very opinionated about your Christian beliefs. I now understand by your reactions that this is probably an area in which you are very sensitive to any sort of criticism). Accordingly, I have asked a mediator to step in. Labyrinth13 20:07-20:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request that both parties please desist from this line of conversation; speculating on other editors' beliefs or tolerance thereof has no real bearing on this article. In my opinion, information about the Christian perspective on the subject should be included (where sourced and verifiable), and, in order to combat systemic bias, perhaps concerned individuals can do research on what other religious traditions have to say on the subject. However, this particular line of discussion is inappropriate and in places violates WP:CIVIL. Comment on the content, not the contributor. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thank you. -- Merope 20:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Thank you for your opinion and assistance. Labyrinth13 20:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think some confusion may arise from the word "critic" as used in this article. It could be understood as meaning "disbeliever" when in fact it is being used to mean "believer who issues a warning". I don't have a good replacement yet, but surely there is one out there. Certainly I understand there could be a knee-jerk reaction to use the label "fundamentalst christian", but I'm sure it's possible to be a "believer who issues a warning", regarding the ouija, without being a "fundamentalist christian". Zuytdorp Survivor 01:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm "Condemn" seems a useful word, and to me it implies belief. Zuytdorp Survivor 02:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree mostly, but I don't think "Condemnation" accurately describes that section. I changed the section title from "Criticism of Ouija boards" to "Negative reactions to Ouija boards." "Criticism" implies unbelief in the board. Wbrameld 22:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, actually it implies no such thing. As it stands now it makes no sense and sounds pretty stupid. "Negative reactions." What do these people get rashes when confronted with a Ouija board? Dwain 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the section name to "Alleged Consequences of Usage." I think that more accurately describes that section. Wbrameld 01:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone might want to add something on electronic versions of the Ouija. I reall that back in the mid-80s, there was a Macintosh Ouija called Gypsy- the mouse mounted onto a planchette on casters and the board was on the screen. Now there is a use of the iPod [2]. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

When I tried to open the video from the BBC Leicester website it said the file could not be found, I'm assuming the BBC must have deleted it. Shouldn't this link be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.99.173 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 29 December 2006

Yes, by all means, remove it. Dwain 23:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In Japan, there is a version of the board with Japanese language (あ　い　う　え　お), and the ritual is to say, "狐狗狸さん、狐狗狸さん、おいで下さい" (Kokkuri san, Kokkuri san, come here please). The rest is basically the same as ouija. In Korea, there is a movie about their ouija board, called Bunshinsaba (분신사바).--erin k. 06:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yea, and there is a Chinese version of Ouija called "dish fairy" (碟仙), in which a small upside-down dish is used as the planchette and a piece of newspaper is used as the board. There are also variants that used a coin or a pen instead of a dish. The game was quite popular among students in the 60s and 70s and the level of superstition was really high: some people who played the game were reported to be "possessed" and there were cases of suicides. The fad faded in Taiwan after a ban was instated. In the 80s the game experienced a bit of a revival following the release of a Hong Kong film called Esprit d'amour (imdb) in 1983. Reports related to the game are really really rare in the recent years. --Lorenzarius 14:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted a sentence from the Popular Culture section that suggested a connection between Ouija and the deity Wee Jas in the Dungeons & Dragons role-playing game. No such connection exists that I am aware of, and I have been playing D&D since 1978. And I notice that the Wee Jas article makes no mention of it. Pat Berry 19:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the following item from the Popular Culture section:

"Ouija Board" is also the working title of GMA Films'latest offering which stars no less than Philippine's current superstar Judy Ann Santos and the pop icon Jolina Magdangal.

An obscure unreleased film with only a working title is not notable, and language like "stars no less than" and "superstar" is not neutral. Pat Berry 21:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

this article is written as if ghosts are actually real, which they definately are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.68.22 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 2 February 2007

The first paragraph of the "History" section is confusing and appears to be inaccurate. It refers to a "French historical account of the philosopher", but neglects to state who the philosopher in question is. As written, it seems to imply that the philosopher in question is "Fu Ji", which is an ancient chinese term for the earliest known reference to a spirit board. It then claims that this unnamed philosopher and his student Philolaus used this technique in approximately 540 BCE. If the reference to the "philosopher" was refering to the chinese historical reference to "Fu Ji", this would make the "philosopher" 660 years old. This is also seventy years prior to the best estimates for the approximate birth of Philolaus, making his participation unlikely as well, either as the philosopher or a student thereof. Does anybody have any better information here? I don't wish to edit it myself, as I don't know what should be here, only that this is clearly in need of some work. Filksinger 18:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As it appeared that nobody else was interested, I dug up the necessary sources and corrected the page myself. Filksinger 21:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article says that Parker Bros holds the patent related to the Ouiji board. These patent(s) must be long expired by now. Can this be cleaned up or reworded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.214.150 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 6 March 2007

"Razorlight singer Johnny Borrell is said to have used an Ouija board to help him write songs, particularly Keep the Right Profile and Hold On. It also told him that he could write intelligent lyrics, but this is a lie widely assumed to be told by Satan."

um? I think the second part of that may be the result of mischief... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.214.214 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 29 June 2007

you don't need to point out every instance of vandalism on the talk page, just correct it and move on (although that is a rather amusing bit of vandalism).68.255.172.71 02:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

i'm removing the part about "starting with V and ending with a vowel curse" as i googled it and the only result was this article. 68.255.172.71 02:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the Ouija being used in the movie The Excorcist? Smiloid (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a rhetorical question?

The piece states, under the Other Notable Users section, “during sleepovers with her friends, Amy Carter would use a Ouija board to get into contact with Abraham Lincoln, whose spirit is believed to haunt the Lincoln Bedroom,” then proudly goes on to admit that, in fact, a citation is actually needed for this claim. Why is this claim even included without the citation? Something of that nature is worthless without the citation. This is very un-encyclopedic...rather tabloid-like. However, if we’re going to sling undocumented, unsubstantiated, un-provable claims up there in the list then I have some to suggest – of course, citation is needed, but in the mean time lets put them up there until someone else comes along and does the work of providing the citation for us:

• Neil Armstrong took an Ouija Board to the moon and used it to communicate with well known Lunar Spirits. This was documented in the 1976 independent film (unreleased) Moon Spirit
• Hillary Clinton has revealed that a fundamental piece of her campaign strategy is daily sessions with a Ouija Board (often in a hotel bedroom) during which time she communicates with Victoria Woodhull, Lenora Fulani's grandmother, and Pat Paulson to seek advice and to glean wisdom from their failed Presidential campaigns
• All four mummified Communist leaders currently on display around the world (Kim Il Sung, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, and Lenin) had an Ouija board placed in a secret compartment within their bier in order to allow for communication from the grave. Only officials of the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City have keys that will unlock the secret drawer
• Within Wellington’s Beehive, behind the cornerstone laid by members of an ultra secret Masonic Lodge, there is buried a pure gold Ouija Board that controls all Ouija Boards in New Zealand and several Pacific island nations under Kiwi tutelage.

Of course, all these “facts” require citation but, hey, this is Wikipedia so let’s just slap them up there on the page for all the world to see and accept that our collective mother will come along and tidy the mess for us because we can’t do a thorough job of substantiating our silly little contributions –- so she needs to come do it for us -- right after she wipes our bum, zips our trousers, and helps us to wash our collective hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.79.62.16 (talk) 09:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand and agree with your point, but is that Hillary Clinton one something that could be cited or did you just make that up? Just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.17.47 (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Look up the link to Pat Paulsen and you will have your answer. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fellas, we can predict hurricane and typhoon paths with Ouija/Archive 1 boards. Jidanni (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the Popular culture section is back with a vengeance. Given the popularity of Ouija boards, this section risks getting way out of hand. I'd like to open a discussion with the hope we can reach consensus about possible parameters for the section. A couple of suggestions:

• each entry must cite a reliable source;
• each entry should describe more than just a passing reference to Ouija.

My second suggestion leaves some wiggle room, but I'm thinking along these lines: a movie with a scene in which people happen to be playing Ouija wouldn't qualify, while a movie with recurring scenes of Ouija play that somehow relate to the plot would be fine. Similar standards would apply to TV show references. Not sure about other forms of media, but I suspect that if we go the reliable-source route, there would be few, and if the section ever got too large it could be spun off into its own article. Comments? Rivertorch (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Two references are included for "Various studies have been produced, recreating the effects of the Ouija board in the lab and showing that, under laboratory conditions, the subjects were moving the planchette involuntarily" - neither of them are any good. The first is about facilitated communication being an "instance" of automatic writing, similar to Ouija boards, and the second is an anecdotal news article about a high school paranormal club that by no means constitutes even one "study." Please include an actual study about Ouija boards or planchettes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.0.158.152 (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe some mention should be made of the (somewhat derogatory) term "Ouija board navigation," which is used to describe a text input method for computer-like systems which have only a directional controller in place of a keyboard. The user is shown an alphabet with a single letter highlighted and moves from letter to letter with the directional control. The quintessential examples of this are DVRs. Numerous cites can be found online, mostly in TiVo related forums. Nsayer (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that one of the more important pieces of information about Ouija boards would be how accurate its answers are. Are there any studies that show its answers to be no better than guesses, or studies that show it to be much more accurate than that? If so, those should be wriitne about in my opinion. 75.189.131.224 (talk) 11:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As a generalization, there are no studies that have ever demonstrated the validity of any pseudoscience claims. One of the biggest problems in doing research, is the possibility of "cheating". As mentioned in the article, it is very easy to control the Ouija board. See the section which mentions an experiment with blindfolded users. Another question is how you measure "accuracy"; the board supposedly communicates with the dead, and is not generally used to discover secret facts that can be checked in the real world. However, if you have some information about research that can be used, by all means contribute to the article. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is an essay by Professor Dr. Eckhard Kruse ("Ouija by Prof. dr. Eckhard Kruse"):

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bpv.ch%2Fblog%2Fouija-von-prof-dr-eckhard-kruse%2F

Quote: "Even if it were only the subconscious of the participating seaters, it is completely unclear how they can synchronize so quickly that a unified message emerges. This is then described by Wikipedia as a "complex group-dynamic process..."

Tobias Claren (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

No, sorry, we go by WP:RS policy. When Kruse gains attention and coverage for his fringe research from WP:FRIND (i.e. non-parapsychology) sources, we can reconsider. -

The article uses both "a Ouija board" and "an Ouija board" in many places. Even though the pronunciation states it starts with a "w" sound, it is really the vowel "ou" which is prononunced this way; the "w" is just a guidance. "An" looks and sounds right. But whichever is chosen, the article should be consistent. Quick poll? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• Voting for "an" --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
• It should be a. Anything else would be a outrage. Or do I mean an woutrage? Rivertorch (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A sound corrects correct an fits the sound based rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.232.36.109 (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think it's "an". That sounds right, "a" sounds entirely wrong and looks entirely wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sazza21 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Another vote here for "a". It's pronounced with a "w" sound, so "an" would be wrong. 67.40.9.62 (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The word is pronounced (/ˈwiːdʒə/ wee-jə). The "ou" is being employed as a "W," which is to say, as a consonant. You wouldn't ever say "an weed." Nor should you ever say "an ouija." 206.130.136.162 (talk) 08:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The town which Houdini is said to have investigated as regards insanity due to ouija board use is not Carrito in California, but El Cerrito in Califonia (San Francisco Bay northeast side); the problem was a legal matter in 1918 -- <see Fortean Times FT249 July 2009, pp 30-37 (article written by Robert Damon Schneck)>. Jeep1999 (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Jeep1999

There is no source listed for the Penn & Teller Bullshit experiment, is this in writing anywhere that it can be linked to? Besides Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.210.61 (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

My deletion of the Tips for use section has been reverted. I am deleting it again because:

• it is presented as a series of fact-based recommendations, although it is actually 100% subjective and based on opinion;
• it violates Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. The source cited actually presents it as humorous, tongue-in-cheek advice;
• it violates Wikipedia policy against how-to guides;
• above all, it is wholly unencyclopedic and not befitting a serious reference work such as Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is intended to provide verifiable, neutral information, not opinion, advice, or humor masquerading as fact. If Doggett887 or others wish to revert again, please discuss it here first to develop consensus that the text in question meets the standards demanded by Wikipedia policies. Rivertorch (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

So if someone dies because they played in cemetery and checked this before hand, but you removed the "tips for use" section, will you raise your hand and say you are sorry for continually deleting this? Or you don't give a shit, its just principle for you is all that matters. Just asking --Mapsfly (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

If the person is dead, how would they notify us it's our fault because we left out a section? Just asking. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That's EXACTLY why I am asking whether the wikipedia user will raise their hand, its rhetorical. As in, he essentially knows he is doing wrong. Whether the authorities find this or not is irrelevant to this inquiry into the wikipedia users mental state.--Mapsfly (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no connection between cemeteries, death and Ouija board use. At least not in the reality-based world. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Then say you will raise your hand, and end the discussion.--Mapsfly (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

On 15 December 2009, user ZebraBus added this paragraph to the Etymology section.

• Another theory is that when Elijah Bond (1/23/1847-4/14/1921) and Charles W. Kennard (12/24/1856-1/14/1925) wanted to name their board, they were looking for something mystical and other-worldly yet acceptable. Both of these men are associated with its patent, and it is not known whether either of them practiced Wicca, which is often referred to as Witchcraft. (The word "Wicca" is derived from the Old English word for "Witchcraft".) According to Elija Bond's own website (www.ElijaBond.com), he visited family in Denver, Colorado between January 29th 1883 and November 7th 1887, where a large number of Native Americans still spoke Spanish as a result of the earlier Spanish Missionary settlements in the area. The Spanish pronunciation for "Ouija" is "Wicca" (or "Week-ha"), and the phonetic spelling for the word Wicca is Ouija. This play on words works perfectly well, as the spelling "Ouija" does not lend itself toward witchcraft, although that is hinted as the board's source of information, even today, as Parker Brothers' tag line for the game is, "It's only a game... isn't it?"

Presently (1-March-2010) this paragraph reads:

• Another theory is that when Elijah Bond and Charles W. Kennard (12/24/1856-1/14/1925) wanted to name their board, they were looking for something mystical and other-worldly yet acceptable. Both of these men are associated with its patent, and it is not known whether either of them practiced Wicca, a form of witchcraft. Elija applied for a patent in 1890 after his return from Denver, Colorado. According to his website^[1], between January 1883 and November 1887 he visited family in Denver where a large number of Native Americans still spoke Spanish as a result of the earlier Spanish Missionary settlements in the area. The Spanish pronunciation for "Ouija" is ['wixa] (or "Wee-hha"), which sounds somewhat like Wicca. This play on words works perfectly well, as the spelling "Ouija" does not lend itself toward witchcraft, although that is hinted as the board's source of information, even today, as Parker Brothers' tag line for the game is, "It's only a game... isn't it?"

This paragraph strikes me as problematic, as it appears to be original research and unjustified theorizing. The reference provided is misspelled—ElijahBond.com is missing its H—and is presented as "Elija Bond's own website" when it is in fact a biography page on Robert Murch's William Fuld site. All the information provided in the reference is the fact that Bond visited Denver. The "large numer of Native Americans" (how many were there? who were they, besides generic "Native Americans"?) who "still spoke Spanish" (how long had they been speaking Spanish? what language did they originally speak?) is not referenced, and the vague generalities used have no source. Even if a large number of Spanish-speaking Native Americans lived near Denver, no reference is provided that indicates Bond had any dealings with such people at all. Further, there are factual errors in the original paragraph, though some have been fixed through editing: first, as a Spanish speaker, I know that the line "The Spanish pronunciation for "Ouija" is "Wicca"" is simply false, and whether ['wixa] "sounds somewhat like" Wicca is subjective. Second, the name Wicca was not in use until the 1960s, well after Bond's patent—a cursory check of the references on the Wicca page will confirm this—and the current edit is correct in saying that Wicca is a form of witchcraft, while the original implies that Wicca is the real name of all witchcraft. Because of these problems, I am deleting the paragraph; if someone re-adds it, please provide references beyond mere guesswork. --Villanelle (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Wicca (etymology) it was a term originating in Old English. It was popularized as a religious term in the 1950s. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am Wiccan, in a documented initiatory liniage, and I know the history of our Craft. The term "wicca" was not used in modern English before Gerald Gardner (who spelled it "wica") popularized it writing around 1951. The notion that it is the etymological origin of "Ouija" is poppycock. 74.83.14.59 (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The recent edits to the article grossly violate the core policy on neutrality by

• changing a section title from the neutral "Criticism of ouija boards" to the non-neutral (and ambiguous) "Consequences",
• moving that section up to an unsuitably prominent place in the article,
• adding to that section a plethora of poorly sourced, unencyclopedic material—including a >50KB "reference" containing lurid, unverifiable allegations masquerading as facts—that pushes a decidedly unscientific point of view, and by
• adding non-neutral material to the lede.

A small portion of the added material may be salvageable, but this is a textbook case of undue weight and non-impartial tone, and it likely is contrary to the fringe theory guideline as well. I am reverting. Rivertorch (talk) 06:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Poorly sourced? All my edits were sourced and I will continue to add more references to the article. Moreover, the "criticism" section rightly belongs where I placed it, especially since "demonic possession" is associated with the oujia board. Do you think notable individuals who used the boards are more important than this? If you disagree with these edits, I will be more than happy to start a RfC where the community can decide on the relevance of the edits. The famous exorcism case mentioned therein has even become the basis for the novel and movie The Exorcist. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree in part. In light of the criticisms section, it could argued that the rest of the article is against WP:NPOV. Any references that doesn't not meet WP:V should be removed and replaced with {{Citation needed|date=}} to give the concerned editors a chance to respond. As for scientific point of view, this isn't a scientific journal and faith-based issues may be presented, particularly since this does touch on faith issues for many. Feel free to change the tone without gutting the concerns. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Anupam, you are being highly selective in your response. For instance, do you really think that "Consequences" is a neutral section title? Do you really think the 50K reference is appropriate? Please feel free to start an RfC. If you don't, I certainly will—or I may post something to the NPOV noticeboard. Rivertorch (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, the article was already problematic (one of 8,000 things to address on my to-do list). It become vastly more so a few hours ago, in some particularly blatant ways. Rivertorch (talk) 16:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please elaborate. I find the section quite a balanced response to the POV of much of the rest of the article, vis: Ouija is a harmless game. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see where it says that. I rather thought the criticism section (redubbed the egregiously non-neutral "Consequences" in what one hopes was carelessness, not POV-pushing) was a bit over the top already, considering the paucity of information in the "Scientific explanation" section, but what do I know? Are you saying that the rantings of professional "demonologists" are required to balance the merest suggestion that Ouija might be sort of like Scrabble or Monopoly, only less fun? Rivertorch (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Per W.G.'s request, I'll elaborate somewhat. It's sort of hard to know where to start, but here are some specific problems with Anupam's wording in the lede:

1. "most Christian denominations have warned against using Ouija boards". Not clearly supported by the cited source. Even if it were supported, it would almost certainly be unverifiable, since "most" implies a majority, and it's unclear how many denominations were counted, how many among those counted were surveyed, what would constitute a warning from a denomination (an encyclical from Rome? an edict from a bishop? an op-ed by a deacon?), and so on. It also would be well to consider that Ellis (who goes unnamed in the footnote) is only one source. If he said that about "most" denominations (and the source doesn't make clear that he did, mentioning only "mainstream" denominations), it should be stated clearly in the text, not in the footnote, who said it—and if he's the only reasonably reliable source who said it, it almost certainly shouldn't be in the lede.
2. "Occultists, on the other hand". Assumes a simple duality among ouija critics and arguably the population at large, whereas in both cases it's way more complicated than that. To put it another way, the phrase "on the other hand" introduces an unwarranted juxtaposition between "most Christian denominations", which are religious institutions with widely varying doctrines, and "occultists", who are unidentified individuals of perhaps even more varying beliefs. This is not neutral wording. While it's similar to Ellis's wording—too similar, some WP:COPYVIO purists might argue—as presented here it's out of context and markedly POV-ish. (It actually doesn't take a purist to object to the long quotes added to the refs; they appear to be copyright violations and really should be removed immediately.)
3. "others [i.e., other "occultists"] echo the warnings of Christendom and caution users against it". A couple of problems here. First, Ellis doesn't use the word "Christendom", which, aside from sounding a bit antiquated for our purposes, implies the entirety of Christianity—a suggestion totally unsupported by any reliable source. And he doesn't say anything about "users"; he says "inexperienced persons", which is rather different.
4. Omitted from Anupam's disputed edit are Ellis's opening words—"Practically since its invention a century ago"—which serves to qualify everything that follows.

To sum up, then, we have one lonely source claiming that at least some mainstream Christian denominations have, at some point since the invention of ouija, warned against ouija-ing and that at least some "occultists" (whoever or whatever they may be) have followed suit to some degree, issuing warnings to inexperienced users. From that one source, we have somehow jumped to most denominations issuing warnings (presumably still in effect) and occultists (again, whoever or whatever they may be—yin to the great yang of Christendom, one wonders?) following suit but this time warning everyone. This is called twisting what a source says. Given that the same edits also changed the title of the "Criticism" section to "Consequences", a huge red flag was raised. I have many other concerns; all of the above is the tip of the iceberg. Rivertorch (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your concerns mainly concern the wording of the information, which can be easily modified. One reason why I left the original quotes by the authors in the references was to allow readers to see the text on which the information presented was based on. I have reworded the sentence you mentioned per your request. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing it. Your rewording is an improvement but failed to address some of my stated concerns. I have made a further edit to the lede, removing the word "Christendom", which overstated things considerably, and replacing it with the prosaic but accurate and neutral "some Christians". There are more problems with the lede and with the Criticism section, but I've run out of time for now. Rivertorch (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

"While most psychologists would like to dismiss both these cases as that of mental illness, they cannot fully explain why both people never had a relapse." This is painfully slanted; I can just imagine the original author shaking his/her finger at me, grasping a board tightly in the other hand. Someone familiar with the subject, please rewrite this. Thanks. &#150; The Realms of Gold (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have modified the wording in the article per your request by adding the clause "According to this Christian proposition" before the material you stated. If it still seems to violate WP:NPOV, could you please offer a wording of the information that you feel would be unbiased? We can then proceed to review it here. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Criticism section should be reworked. There is clear proof that the ouija board works on the principles of the ideomotor response.

http://derrenbrown.co.uk/blog/science-scams/episode-4/ here is a link to a video by derren brown (mentalist/hypnotist) actually explaining how it works.

The rest is not really criticism, in my opinion. These examples just state that it is the real thing and highly dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.77.163.106 (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the criticism section should be cut down a lot. Mentions of demons etc. carrying spiritualist presumptions should be removed. The most obvious and necessary criticism to include is surely the rational explanation above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.242.13.162 (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. The section is well sourced. These are genuine people who have given criticism of the board. It is one of the better sections in the article. Explanations on how it possibly works are under their own sections. Puca (talk)

I appreciate your point - these are indeed people who criticised use of Ouija boards. But the text that has now been moved to 'Controversies' remains very biased. An encyclopedia shouldn't talk about 'driving out the demon' as if it was a real creature.

I don't see any rational explanations for how the Ouija board works in this article - perhaps someone with knowledge could add them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.242.26.162 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I heartily agree on the necessity of including the ideomotor response explanation here, as well as ending this article's insistence on treating 'demons' as a real threat. I actually arrived at this article by clicking a link in the ideomotor response article. Unfortunately, by omitting any mention of this scientific explanation, we have a purely dogmatic (read: unverifiable) explanation for why children should not buy a board game. Dpenn89 (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well, this is an encyclopedia, and yet people on this article tend to put the supernatural before the scientific? Replace the anecdotal evidence and criticism with real facts like it has been suggested. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The ideomotor theory seems prima facie to explain the production of messages in general; however, it could not explain the production of information unknown to any of the participants, e.g. predictions of the future. Thus the theory seems in principle falsifiable, as a good theory should be.

Have no defendants of the boards produced instances of such messages (putative or otherwise)? And if so, what was the response of the scientists?

Paul Magnussen (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, there have been no defendants of the board, who have been able to demonstrate the production of unknown information - if there were, much like if there were scientific evidence of psychic phenomenon, it would most certainly be on this article, and all over articles of this nature. Read the comments below - Ideomotor just explains the unconscious movement of the planchette. There are several psychological reasons why people believe in alleged paranormal phenomenon, that have nothing to do with validity of the phenomenon. People who claim to have unknown information from such sources, or claim to have observed others having such unknown information, have yet to prove such claims. CleverTitania (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ouija boards probably do work to the ideomotor effect in some basic cases, but they also work due to external unseen forces too. I don't have anything to prove it, but I've used them in the past where I'd merely think of a made-up word and watch others spell that word out. Quite astounding to witness. How can they be using their own physical ideomotor responses to read my mind? Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.202.98.245 (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You may think they read your mind, but that doesn't make it true. And there is no evidence to suggest any unseen force works through a Ouija board, just as there is no evidence of anyone gleaming previously unknown information from tarot cards - all of these 'tools' act off of nothing but subconscious thought and ideomotor responses. The most likely explanation, is that you both thought of the same word, based on the same unconscious reaction to stimuli, in the room or in your lives. It's a perceptual illusion - you aren't conscious of the stimuli that caused you both to think of the so-called random word, so you imagine it's a supernatural phenomenon. Another possibility, is the creation of false memories, to confirm your desire that there is an unseen force at work. It's entirely common - people want to believe they both picked the number 12, so their mind tells them that the number they picked was 12, even though it was 79 - or better yet, you tell yourself you thought 12 first, and then changed it to 79, and the other person read the original answer in your head. Even the most exceptional brain, can play tricks on the conscious mind. And it doesn't help, that we better retain the memory of when it 'worked' then when it didn't.

Which is why anecdotal evidence will never been considered empirical evidence - .ie. proof. You have no proof, because no one else does either. If something can't be reproduced, studied and either verified or proven false, it's not empirical evidence - and no cases of empirical evidence for supernatural phenomenon causing planchette movement, have been found to date. And this comes from a former believer in both Ouija and Tarot, who eventually had to acknowledge that the supposed successes are dwarfed by the failures. Belief is not fact - and no paranormal phenomenon exists, until there is proof it exists. CleverTitania (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the person above that the ideomotor effect is not always the cause. Without proof (but maybe I should do this on video one day if I can gather the courage), I had a dictionary in a chair away from the table where two friends used the board. I opened a random page, looked at a word, and said "go" to them. We wanted to prove that it was fake and due to ideomotor activity, too. But to our shock, they always spelled the word. Absolutely mind-blowing and freaked the hell out of us. Only did about 5 words before we decided this was too much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.20.71.152 (talk) 12:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This so called "Criticism" section starts off with the attitude that Ouija is real and proceeds to highlight only that view point using faulty evidence never so much as once taking note of the viewpoints of those who believe it is nothing but a game and that all aspects of it can be explained scientifically. It would do this article some good if the section were labelled "Controversy" as it should be considering it's current contents and rewritten to be shorter and denser as it has far more content then it needs to adequately cover things. As for my faulty evidence comment I point to such lines as "The group of six teenagers led by Natasha Cornett held responsible for the murder of a family in 1997 were known to be obsessed with the Ouija board and the occult." which is as much evidence Ouija is related to the murders as is the fact they likely ate whatever their favorite fruit was regularly. Correlation does not imply causation.207.118.151.77 (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism is exactly what is in the section. "Controversy" would not be appropriate for that section. I see no problem with the Criticism section. The beliefs and statements of the subjects criticizing the Ouija board are their own. Puca (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC).

I disagree Puca the other signer is right, we need factual criticism, leave the supernatural concerns to the rest of the article. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The section has returned emphasizing supernatural concerns over all others and connecting Ouija with evil, etc. I'm removing it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this article and related issues at Ouija Board Criticism, WP:NPOV makes it clear that views by reliable sources are represented in an article in proportion to their prominence. Clearly, the material Dwain seeks to insert is entirely in support of the view that Ouija has supernatural powers, a minority view that is presently represented accordingly in the lead of the article. Adding several hundred KB more material to emphasize the fringe view is not appropriate. There is also the problem that the material is a WP:COPYVIO, apparently being lifted directly from someone called Mary Thomas Guicson- LuckyLouie (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I take offense that you are accusing me of posting copyrighted material. That is certainly not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ouija&oldid=15584547#Criticism_of_Ouija_boards You are, in fact, pushing your POV over the criticism of various professional people. Do doctors prescribe to the supernatural as you are suggesting? Your argument does not hold up. Tell me, what is the real reason you are affraid of the criticism from these people? Dwain (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Red herrings aside, the reason your proposed "criticism" section has received attention from myself and others is it's essentially a collection of arguments cherry-picked to reflect a specific and exclusive point of view (i.e. Ouija is dangerous, it has supernatural powers, etc.). As mentioned above, the article does represent this particular minority view in the lead in a manner which is in keeping with NPOV (which directs us to weight viewpoints in proportion to their prominence). Adding a bucket-load of material to support the "Ouija is a danger" point of view is inappropriate and places WP:UNDUE emphasis on it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I read the sources, or rather scanned them [3] [4], but did not see where it has been "shown to be caused by unconscious movements of those controlling the pointer, a psychological phenomenon known as the ideomotor effect."

It just looks like a claim of the people writing the sites. While I believe the claim is correct, I also believe that unless there are better sources, "shown to be" is a false claim for Wikipedia. ^BE_Critical__Talk 15:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I made the needed revisions. Finding sources for the ideomotor effect's relation to ouija are no problem since it's a widespread and verifiably mainstream view. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me, thanks. ^BE_Critical__Talk 16:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey dudes, I was perusing this and I wonder, do you not know of the 18th century chemist Chevreul and his PROOF that this automatic stuff is subconscious and involuntary? Nevertheless it is caused by our state of mind, nothing more, and Dr. de la Tourette named this "ideomotor". It's a term also used with Tourette's Syndrome, because Chevreul's discovery describes it as a tic in a healthy person. Even the pendulum is now known as the "Chevreul Pendulum". Skeptical Inquirer Magazine published Chevreul's 1813 paper in full, but I'm afraid I do not have the date for you.76.195.86.155 (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry...just look here Michel_Eugène_Chevreul at "Chevreul's work" section. Excellent citation. (Hope the link works right.)76.195.86.155 (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think these kind of things are like religion...or they ARE religion. Not susceptible to the kind of proofs or disproofs guys like Chevreul would like to apply to them. A believer would say, If the subconscious mind is the source of this activity, who knows how much the subconscious knows, or where it begins and ends? It's a futile argument. That's why we just report what reputable sources have said. Rumiton (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Earlier versions of this article were actually better than this current version. This current version sucks. Who are the people responsible for the article falling into such bad shape? Dwain (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Try actually telling us what the problem is if you want it fixed. Or do it yourself. As for who made changes, it's under the History tab at the top of the page. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Per discussion at Articles for deletion/Ouija Board Criticism, I've added the revamped and improved criticism section, dispensing with the need for a POVFORK. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I recently came across a new app for the iPhone that apparently summons spirits called "Ghost Seance".

It states on the website(http://www.ghostseance.com): THIS IS NOT A FAKE APP - THIS IS AN AUDIO RECORDING OF A REAL MEDIUM THAT WILL LEAD A SEANCE FROM BEGINNING TO END. THE MEDIUM WILL ATTEMPT TO SUMMON SPIRITS USING TECHNIQUES SUCH AS SPOKEN SPELLS AND CHANTS - WITHOUT YOU HAVING TO DO A THING!

I don't know about anyone else, but this seems like the devil has gone high tech. I am not judging anyone that would use such a thing but just like the Ouija Board it seems like a powerful tool disguised as a toy... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.70.234 (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Have just watched an edition of QI in which Ouija boards are discussed. It was said that the board's original purpose was for the user to get in touch with part of their subconscious rather than as a means of contacting the dead, but that films such as The Exorcist gave it a more sinister overtone. (see here) Should we mention this if we can find something to reference it? TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The fame or popularity of this particular divination system appears to affect the quality of the article. Other articles concerning other divination methods or tools are generally cleaner, IMO.

Religious and superstitious claims, including spiritualist doctrine might deserve short mention with links to the relevant articles, but we probably shouldn't attempt to condense those doctrines in the article.

Similarily, religious organizations or individuals' claims against it usually also apply to divination and "witchcraft" in general, which are condemned by their doctrine.

It makes sense to have a reasonably developped history section, though.

As for the scientific explanation, it might deserve its own referenced, short section, linking to the Ideo-Motor Response article. This explanation probably also applies to various divination systems such as radiesthesia, dowsing...

I'm also unsure that a list of notable people who consulted this system is necessary; this might be close to the discouraged trivia lists? 66.11.179.30 (talk) 10:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The article makes some dubious claims. Care should be given to its encyclopedic nature. The article on astrology properly describes that topic as pseudoscience, yet this article does not prominently display the Ouija Board as such. The Ouija Board is a registered trademark of Hasbro Inc. and can be found sold alongside Monopoly at toy stores. Only Hasbro is entitled to manufacture and market the Ouija Board.

The article discusses so called planchette writing devices, but these are very different from the Ouija Board. One could create such an article within the guidelines of Wikipedia:Fringe_theories. There is no source which connects planchette writing devices to the 19th century invention known as Ouija. The connection is assumed despite the contentions of the inventor that he came up with it himself. As it stands, the article is misleading because it implies that the Hasbro product existed prior to its invention in the form of these other devices. If this were the case, the original patents for the device would be invalid. You can't invent something that already exists.

The article also notes a similarity between a Hindi word and the trademarked name. Unless the etymology can be connected, this information should be removed. A linguist would have to opine on whether a connection existed, and there would have to be evidence of use prior to 1890 when the Ouija Board device was invented.

A good comparison is between the Ouija Board and the Magic 8-Ball. Both are toys marketed by toy companies as fortune telling devices. Certainly, we can draw analogies between the 8-Ball and Cleromancy, but the 8-Ball is still a toy marketed by Mattel. Similarly, we can draw analogies between the Ouija board and planchette writing devices, but the Ouija Board is still a toy marketed by Hasbro. Gx872op (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Properly speaking, the Ouija board sold by Hasbro is a game or toy. Spirit boards as such are not even pseudo-science. The belief in their operation is not based on scientific claims but on (lowercase S) spiritism. Even a scientific explanation that ideomotor response drives the planchette does not answer (or ask) what drives the mediums directing it - e.g. is it subconscious knowledge or desire?How does this relate to other methods of inspired communication such as automatic writing and trance-channelling. Calling it a "hoax" implies a knowing intention to defraud, while many users seem to be sincere if unaware of being the originator of the information. In that sense, the operation of a talking board is genuinely occult - operating from unknown or ill-understood causes. If I can find some actually sound and reputable discussion of this in esoteric literature (there is such a thing), I will revise accordingly. 74.83.14.59 (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The article is of dubious quality because the very idea of the Ouija board is so debated. There aren't always spirits around and movies exaggerate the idea of meeting malicious spirits who will break through and get their murder on. The problem is that IF there are spirits around, a cheap Ouija board certainly provides an access point, but is more likely to be used by malicious spirits who will take advantage of inexperienced and casual users in order to find any way through, while benevolent spirits are often looking for help from somebody who knows what they're doing. At least that's the theory; don't tell me anybody ever went out and bought a $9.99 board to do some serious research about contact with the spirit world. Harley Quinn hyenaholic (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Kennard claimed he learned the name "Ouija" from using the board and that it was an ancient Egyptian word meaning "good luck." When Fuld took over production of the boards, he popularized the more widely accepted etymology, that the name came from a combination of the French and German words for "yes".

I couldn't help noticing that the name Ouija bears some resemblance to Egyptian wḏȝ, the second word of a formula which was often placed after the names of Egyptian kings, running ˁnḫ, wḏȝ, snb, "life, prosperity (also translated as 'welfare', 'well-being'), health". (See Ankh wedja seneb.) While the word is normally vocalised as wedja, older sources have utcha[5], udja[6]. French sources also spell oudja[7]. Interestingly, this word wḏȝ can also mean "amulet"[8]. It is not an exact match, and the resemblance may be purely coincidental, but this word is not a particularly obscure one, and Kennard could conceivably have picked it up from an annotated translation, an encyclopedia, or some other popularising work. I thought I'd drop the idea here, seeing that Kennard's story is dismissed in its entirety by several sources on the Internet. The claim that the name was based on an ancient Egyptian word, however, doesn't seem so implausible. Iblardi (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Military ships have a small mock up of the aircraft carriers top deck and minerture aircraft and the person helps organize/direct traffic/parking and this is often called Ouija board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.170.143 (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In the german Wikipedia is written, that the name Quija is a combination of the french (Oui) and the german (Ja) word for "Yes". --84.137.14.116 (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

This article reads like movement is a given. More often than not however, they don't do anything unless one of the users move it consciously... Could someone please make it so it doesn't sound like they always do something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.185.5.86 (talk) 06:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I have come to be told that the Ouija board was not originally created with any kind of communication with spirits or other beings in mind at all, but that it's original purpose was 'to get answers from oneself' ie from the subconcious, I'm surprised not to see this mentioned, does it not have any bearing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.221.238.179 (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I see the skeptics are all over this article but I think another point of view needs to be taken into account too. I find these sentences to be derogatory: "Despite being repeatedly debunked by the efforts of the scientific community and deemed superstitious by traditional Christians", "Mainstream religions and some occultists have associated use of a Ouija board with the threat of demonic possession, and some have cautioned their followers not to use an Ouija board", pretty much all of the criticism section is derogatory. Overall I think this article is very biased towards skeptics and focuses way too much on Christians and Christianity, though the references do specifically refer to Christians many people who believe in the superstitions surrounding the Ouija board, such as myself, are not all Christian (I am agnostic) but the article makes it look like that, and it also makes it look like Christians are ridiculously shunning them. I think the Christian group who burned the Harry Potter books was a Christian group, but should not represent all Christians, it is like saying all Christians hate gays and picket outside of military funerals because Westboro does it. It is ridiculous. Also, it is primarily paranormal groups who shun Ouija boards now, in my opinion, and not Christians, though I think the average American is smart enough now and days to avoid them without needing a Christian or paranormal investigator to tell them not to. ItsWolfeh (talk) 11:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed the points in your critique, and changed the wording to be more balanced. How ever I don't think it is fair to try to separate Christianity from the use of the Ouija board, since they along with oculists regard the "effects" as real. MIS (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

"...Pretty much all of the criticism section is derogatory." Do you feel the criticism section should be more positive? In what way? Nowhere in the article does it say that all Christians or all religions believe that Ouija is from Satan, so your complaint is misguided. And we're required to not give weight to fringe supernatural explanations where mundane explanations are more widely accepted. That's not "bias" toward "skeptics", it's policy. Seriously, if you have any policy-based arguments for keeping the neutrality disputed tag on this article, I'd like to hear them, otherwise the tag is going to be removed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Penn and Teller's "experiment" proved only that certain types of outcomes were possible with humans interacting with Ouija boards. Certainly if one had to imagine all possible outcomes that would be one of the most obvious. Unless you are the most ardent atheist one has to believe that there are dimensions of which we have no knowledge. In the city of El Cerrito, California it is illegal to own a Ouija board due to a series of occurrences there in the 1920s, and then, of course, there is 'The Exorcist' case and a number of other cases. I tend to believe that any entity of any type that a person with a Ouija Board contacts will likely be of vastly superior intelligence and therefore unlikely to present itself to all users in the same way. The Ouija board obviously does not want us to know all (or any) of its secrets.173.14.29.14 (talk) 23:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha!

"Unless you are the most ardent atheist one has to believe that there are dimensions of which we have no knowledge." While I am an atheist, it has nothing to do with being ardent. Until there is empirical evidence of deities, magic and the paranormal, they do not exist. It's as simple as that. And I most certainly do not have to believe there are 'dimensions of which we have no knowledge," because that phrase has no meaning whatsoever. Dimensions of what? What kind of knowledge is there to have? Are you talking about string theory, the multi-verse theory - none of those theories suggest the reality of any supernatural phenomenon or any kind of consciousness beyond the ones we're aware of. If you wish to claim all people must accept something to be true, you better define what you're talking about first.

"In the city of El Cerrito, California it is illegal to own a Ouija board due to a series of occurrences there in the 1920s..." Here is an excellent example of the importance of checking your sources. Allegedly, a group of people went mad - displaying NO paranormal phenomenon beyond going nuts and running around naked - from using a Ouija board, resulting in the supposed ban. First off - I can find no sources for this story, beyond a reference to an episode of Auction Kings, and a bunch of sites all about 'spirit boards' and psychics. None of the articles I've found, provided an original source - coincidentally I did find a 1922 article, " "U.S. Upholds Tax on Ouija Boards: Manufacturers Must Stand Federal Tariff." http://www.sfweekly.com/exhibitionist/2013/11/07/throwback-thursday-san-francisco-headline-edition-nov-4-10. But let's say the story is true. Let's say a bunch of people went crazy, and it was blamed on Ouija use - there is still no evidence confirming any of the people actually used a board. It's a single fluff piece, passed around unreliable sites, with no supporting documentation. But again, let's say they all used the board, and everyone believed it drove them insane... in the 1600's, 20 people (mostly women) were executed as witches, because a bunch of little girls played sick, and a family feud turned into a literal witch trial. Mass hysteria is a fact - there are tons of examples in history. Just because people claim that something supernatural happened to them, doesn't make it a fact.

Oh, and I personally searched the El Cerrito, California municipal code. If there ever was a ban on Ouija boards, there isn't one now.

As for the supposed "true story" behind the Exorcists - yeah, not so much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exorcism_of_Roland_Doe#Investigations_and_explanations

There are no other cases, any more reliable than those you listed. Ouija is a board game - it does not have its own motivations, and there is presently zero evidence to support that it allows you to contact anyone. Your arguments do not represent a rational POV - your entire comment is based on assumptions, presumptions and superstitions. If you choose to suspend disbelief, and treat it as a genuine conduit for communication, that's your business - but do not suggest that is a rational choice based on facts or evidence. All of the supposed phenomenon, can be explained, and has been at length. CleverTitania (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Correct, not all phenomena can be explained. In his essay "Ouija von Prof. Dr. Eckhard Kruse" by Professor Eckhard Kruse, he wrote (translation): "Even if it were only the subconscious of the participating seaters, it is completely unclear how they can synchronize so quickly that a unified message emerges. This is then described by Wikipedia as a "complex group dynamic process..."

The Ouija basement "beyond" and "spirits" are already proven.

• See over 45 years of successful reincarnation research at the University of Virginia.

See "Professor Dr. Ian Stevenson" (and his scientific books), he did much of the research. See the best case study of "James Leininger". The Elsevier document offers the University of Virgnia for free download.

• See the evp experiment of 1971 by the biased (against a paranormal explanation) shielding expert Peter Hale in the Shielded (NATO standard) Laboratory of Belling & Lee in Enfield, England.
• Go to the Reading Room of the CIA (.gov) and search for "Uri Geller". See the document "CIA-RDP96-00787R000700110003-2.pdf".

It proves that the CIA has commissioned Stanford University to test Uri Geller. Stanford and the CIA are convinced of his abilities. Even today. And search for "Experiments wiht Uri Geller 1972" (with typo) by Youtube. This is a video from the Stanford Research Institute.

• And the well-known physicist Sir Professor Dr. Roger Penrose is convinced that consciousness arises through quantum effects and remains after death.

See "quantumconsciousness" and "quantum mind" (here on wikipedia). Tobias Claren (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Say what?

This whole section needs re-writing, as the information is too compressed e.g. the connection between Fuld and Bond is not explained. Alfrew (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

In the History / Toy subsection:
The name of Rahul Pillai as the employer of William Fuld is mentioned without any explanation of Pillai or his connection with the subject. And the name Kennard appears without any introduction, perhaps due to previous editing. This is why I have added clarification tags. Alfrew (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Lead section: this contains information not present in the main text. The purpose of the lead section is to summarize the contents of the article and it should not contain unique information (other than basic personal details, in the case of biographical articles).

Confusing or unclear:
1. the article name is "Ouija" but reference is made throughout to a "ouija board", so what exactly is the subject?;
2. there is no clear description of what the Ouija actually is — it is currently described as being related to the planchette, but just what constitutes a ouija board is not clearly stated;
3. its development is not clearly traced;
4. the article prominently mentions criticism by religious groups and others, but doesn't have adequate sources for this and the facts are unclear;
5. the article suggests some controversy regarding alleged supernatural abilities of the board and various possible dangers of its use, but does not clearly outline the debates on these matters and any consensus that has been achieved in the academic world, or elsewhere. Alfrew (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The name Jishnu Thyagarajan is not present in the patent cited.--Sreesarmatvm^talk_contribs 10:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I see some phrases have been lifted out of context and used in the lead, e.g. "harmless parlor game unrelated to the occult until…" (huh? it's now considered harmful? by who?) and occultists said to echo Christian warnings and "caution inexperienced users" (inexperienced? in what? spirit contact?) and serve to put undue emphasis on the Christian "warnings". While some may consider the religious view of Ouija to be the primary and most important view, this emphasis isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear User:LuckyLouie, first of all, I'd like to thank you for adding a sentence about scientific criticism in the lede. I definitely think that was much needed. Also, I can see your perspective regarding the sentence about the "harmless parlor game". Feel free to modify that so it reads more clearly. The two sentences regarding the religious and occult views of Ouija boards has been in this article for quite some time and I do find it relevant, especially when most secondary and tertiary sources, such as the one published by the University Press of Kentucky, as well as one published by SAGE Publications (both academic printers) mention them in their discussions about Ouija boards. At Wikipedia, we should reflect what other reliable sources believe is important. In addition, we do have a section about religious responses in the body of the article and per WP:LEDE, including a one-two sentence summary is quite appropriate. I hope this reply is a good compromise to your suggestions. Have a great day! With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

RE: "harmless", would "innocent" be preferable? I've taken the liberty of making that change. If you can think of better phraseology, please amend. Alfrew (talk) 03:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Capitalization in the main article is inconsistent, with more use of "ouija" toward the beginning and "Ouija" elsewhere. Is there any authority for either? 70.36.234.14 (talk) 08:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Coming to this article for the first time, I was surprised to see it lacks an explanation of how a Ouija board is used. I have a vague understanding from movies, but I'd like to see the process laid out. Indeed, I would think that this should be the first section after the table of contents; you don't really know what a Ouija board is if you don't know how to use it. TypoBoy (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The pertinent text currently reads: "Jane Roberts contacted Seth initially through the Ouija board an 'energy personality essence no longer focused in the physical world'. The book Seth Speaks was an explanation of reality by Seth." By stating Jane Roberts "contacted Seth", the clear implications from the verb and the unqualified use of the "Seth" proper name (twice) are that this "Seth" actually existed at the time of "contact" (or indeed ever), and had his "real" words reported in Jane Roberts' book. A majority of people would disagree, believing Seth was manufactured in Jane Robert's mind and not a real personality at all. The text can be edited so as to not make such a questionable claim, yet also, one hopes, be tactful enough so as to not prolong a corrections contest with Jane Roberts' acolytes, by changing it as follows (note use of single quotes): "Jane Roberts claimed to have initially contacted one 'Seth', an 'energy personality essence no longer focused in the physical world,' with a Ouija board. Afterwards she wrote the book Seth Speaks, purporting to be an explanation of reality by 'Seth.'" Bigbadsteve (talk) 15:09, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I am wondering if a usages section would be useful? I know that it is a parlor game, but it is used for other purposes. I know that there was a Tips for Use section earlier, but would there be a better way to present the information? Gregortu (talk) 08:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I have added a line describing instructions published by Hasbro. Other uses are described in the lead. "Tips for Use" is not appropriate, per WP:NOTMANUAL. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Came to this article from a social media post about words that are commonly mispronounced to get more information, and I noticed that 'Wee-Jee' is listed as a correct pronunciation. Why is this? I get that it is often mispronounced this way, but that doesn't suddenly make it correct. Patrickchedges (talk) 00:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The article lists /ˈwiːdʒə/ WEE-jə or /ˈwiːdʒi/ WEE-jee as pronunciations. WEE-jee is likely included due to its widespread use rather than it being "correct". See WP:NOTDIC: "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, phrases etc. "should" be used (but it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to discuss how a word is used)."- LuckyLouie (talk) 01:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. - Patrickchedges (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

It has to be pronounced the French way, as it's 2 French word. It's probable that people who ignore the French origin tends to pronounce it the English, Spanish or German way, but it's not the proper one.

Wee-ja (with French «j» like in «garage») — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8B4A:86E0:884B:1944:C482:A009 (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

«that the name came from a combination of the French and German words for "yes"»

That's all wrong. «Oui ja» is a way to say yes in old French, please make some searches and fix it. The one who thinks it's German, doesn't know the history of the «oui ja» and doesn't know how to speak old French (it's not so old French, but it doesn't exist anymore in modern French)

If it was German, it wouldn't be pronounced the French way, but «ya».

Read in French George Sand, and you will see that «oui ja» was the same than «oui» in the rural world.

See here, and please, fix this article:

http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/Ja

Oui ja, was often used to say «yes, sure». There's no raison to pick a word in a language and the other one in another when the whole expression was used in one language, it more logical, and if it was German, it woul be pronounced the German way.

The appearance of (and the use of) the Ouija board in Arthur C. Clarke's novel Childhood's End is far more important than anywhere else. In the novel, the space aliens are deeply interested in investigating parapsychology among human beings, and for good reasons. They find that almost all of the writings on the subject are total nonsense, but there is a kernel of truth in such things as the Ouija board and a few other elements of parapsychology.
I have made a paragraph on this subject, and I placed it at the top of the section, where it belongs.24.121.195.165 (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)