Talk:Ouija/Archive 1

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Fascinating

message: 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)
thread_title: Mousepads

message: 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)
thread_title: Critics

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cardboard 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Links 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Skeptical viewpoint???

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  THERE REAL 

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

message: 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)
thread_title: In popular culture

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Further proof of bias 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Critics" - need better word 

message: 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 . --Gadget850 ( Ed) 21:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other External Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Around the World 

message: 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)
thread_title: Wee Jas

message: 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)
thread_title: Movie spam

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  First History Section Paragraph 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Notable users 

message: 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)
thread_title: Notable Users - TMV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Glaring Lack of Citation 

message: Fellas, we can
predict hurricane and typhoon paths with  boards. Jidanni (talk) 02:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predicting storm paths 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Popular culture section 

message: 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)
thread_title:  References for Ouija Board  

message: 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)
thread_title:  The term "Ouija board navigation" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A or an 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ouija - Houdini's investigation of its use 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No source on Penn & Teller Bullshit episode 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: 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 websitehttp://www.ElijaBond.com, 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  (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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Wicca etymology theory 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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, AnupamTalk 06:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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, AnupamTalk 06:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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, AnupamTalk 06:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section edits 

message: 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:
# "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.
# "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.)
# "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.
# 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)
replies: text: 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, AnupamTalk 06:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Selected concerns

message: "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. – The Realms of Gold (talk) 06:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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, AnupamTalk 06:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias alert! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: That is not a Criticism section

message: I read the sources, or rather scanned them  , 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. BECritical__Talk 15:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That looks good to me, thanks. BECritical__Talk 16:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Shown to be

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Chevreul

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Current Article Sucks 

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticism

message: 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)
thread_title:  iPhone's modern day Ouija Board -- an app that summons REAL spirits? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What QI says 

message: 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)
thread_title:  TMI? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: 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, udja. French sources also spell oudja. Interestingly, this word wḏȝ can also mean "amulet". 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)
thread_title:  On etymology (speculative) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Non Movement 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ouija board a self analysis tool 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "...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)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "The strange talk about the boards from Fuld's competitors flooded the market" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rahul Pillai & Kennard 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup message boxes - August 2014 

message: The name Jishnu Thyagarajan is not present in the patent cited.--Sreesarmatvmtalkcontribs 10:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jishnu Thyagarajan 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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, AnupamTalk 22:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Ouija" or "ouija"? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  What do you do with this thing? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jane Roberts' "Seth" claimed to be a known real personality in "Notable Users" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Creation of "Usages" section  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for clearing that up. - Patrickchedges (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Wee-Jee as a correct pronunciation? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Ouija board in literature