Talk:Ouija/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Marketed?

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

Fascinating

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)

Mousepads

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)

Not NPOV

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

Reworking page

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

NPOV

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)

Genericized Trademark or not?

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:

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

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
TM that some people think is used in a general way often enough but still retains its status as a trademark (Minakers opinion)...
What sources (if any) are we using to decide that.

Does "Ouija" fulfill that criteria of definition?

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)

How is it done?

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

Critics

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)

Error

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

Cardboard

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)

History

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

Links

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)

Do they Work?

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

Skeptical viewpoint???

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)

Morons

"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

THERE REAL

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. --Monk e y 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).

Discussion on userpage

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

In popular culture

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)

Criticism of Ouija Boards

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)

Further proof of bias

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)

Christian critics

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)

"Critics" - need better word

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)

Technology

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)

Around the World

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)

Wee Jas

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)

Movie spam

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)

Pretence

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

First History Section Paragraph

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)

Patent

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

Notable users

"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)

Notable Users - TMV

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)

Categories: Talk archives