Talk:Ouija

The term "Ouija board navigation"

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)

Accuracy of Ouija board answers

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

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

A or an

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

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

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

ouija - Houdini's investigation of its use

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

I don't know why but I need to talk about this since some weeks I'm starting to feel watched every time when I weak up until I go to sleep and I feel like someone is breading on my neck and making me search staff about the Ouija board well however I will find a way to get out of this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.131.34 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No source on Penn & Teller Bullshit episode

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)

Tips for use

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)

Wicca etymology theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criticism section edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Selected concerns

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

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

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

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

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

Bias alert!

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

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

Criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is not a Criticism section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shown to be

I read the sources, or rather scanned them [1] [2], but did not see where it has been "shown to be caused by unconscious movements of those controlling the pointer, a psychological phenomenon known as the ideomotor effect."

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

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

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

Chevreul

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

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

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

The Current Article Sucks

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

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

Criticism

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)

iPhone's modern day Ouija Board -- an app that summons REAL spirits?

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)

What QI says

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)

TMI?

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)

Dubious

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

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

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

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

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

On etymology (speculative)

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[3], udja[4]. French sources also spell oudja[5]. Interestingly, this word wḏȝ can also mean "amulet"[6]. It is not an exact match, and the resemblance may be purely coincidental, but this word is not a particularly obscure one, and Kennard could conceivably have picked it up from an annotated translation, an encyclopedia, or some other popularising work. I thought I'd drop the idea here, seeing that Kennard's story is dismissed in its entirety by several sources on the Internet. The claim that the name was based on an ancient Egyptian word, however, doesn't seem so implausible. Iblardi (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Military ships have a small mock up of the aircraft carriers top deck and minerture aircraft and the person helps organize/direct traffic/parking and this is often called Ouija board.