Talk:Tarot/Archive 2

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

New Leaf

Hi I am new to editing this article. It seems to me that there is an ongoing flamefest for some reason about this article, involving a number of editors who obviously have barrows to push (which is quite fine, wikipedia would not be a useful source of info if people were not motivated to edit it). The article itself is littered with fact tags etc which make it hard to read. I've just archived all the copious talk, and I am hoping that we can clean this article up so it is useful. I'd suggest a 'controversy' or 'theories of origin' or similar sections in the article if necessary to limit rv wars etc., hopefully we can isolate the parts of the article that are noncontroversial so that at least some of it is useful to the disinterested reader. --Surturz 03:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes, Surturz. I'm sure they will evolve, but I feel your changes fixed many of the POV and reference issues raised by others and goes a long way to resolving things and "pushing the reset button."--P Todd 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reinstating my changes. The article still needs a lot of improvement, but as long as each new version is better than the previous one, we'll get there. --Surturz 23:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

They CAN be used as playing cards?

Is there anyone today disputing the fact that game playing is the original purpose of tarot? All the external sources to which this article links acknowledges this fact. If there is a NPOV over origins, I think it needed to be said that not only CAN they be used for gaming they still ARE sometimes used for such a purpose. I am not only referring to the traditional trick taking games of Europe in this case, but also of recently designed games such as Tarot Auction or those Looney Lab games which use Icehouse pieces with the tarot decksSmiloid 00:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The word "can" does not dispute that they are used as playing cards - it confirms it. I think it is a question of grammar, not of fact. "Can" implies that it does happen, "Could" implies that it does not happen, "Are" implies only that thing happens. I believe "can" is the correct word to use. The sentence "Tarot cards are used as playing cards." is not completely correct because there are other uses (e.g. divination) --Surturz 01:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't very meaningful to say they CAN be used for such a purpose. I CAN use my credit cards for a rock, paper, scissors type game. MasterCard beats Visa, Visa beats Discover, and Discover beats MasterCard. Any type of card can be used for gaming. It indicates a potential use and not an actual one. It is a fact that they ARE used for gaming.Smiloid 07:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why you feel that using the word "can" somehow implies that the game or Tarot is not played, particularly since the italicised text preceding the article gives links to those games. If you prefer to reword the phrase to use the word "are", then go ahead, but you will need to refer to the divinatory use for them as well for completeness. --Surturz 01:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Multi-article proposal

What does everyone think of making the main Tarot article only address the history and designs of the Tarot cards, and then having a separate article about how they are used for divination, in addition to the extant Tarot game articles? --Surturz 01:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I support that, as I've said before. We can make a balanced general article. As an encyclopedia article, it should be informative and educational. It would be good to tell folks that have only heard about Tarot card as used for divination about the origins and use as a game. Conversely, someone that perhaps is reading from Europe, would learn more about the esoteric uses of Tarot cards. We need to remember, however, that whether the information is about the cards, the games, divination, iconography, or whatever, we must first find a verifiable and reliable secondary source. Generally this is from some reputable academic book, article, thesis, etc that has source material itself. If it has an extensive index, bibliography, reading list, footnotes, etc, it is probably academic in nature. If it's just someone's opinions or views, it is probably a poor source. In a sense, it's like you are writing a college research paper. Have your information or quotation cards or notes, and the source cited. Also have a card or note with the source's bibliographic information. - Parsa 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've moved the stuff about fortune telling using tarot cards to a new article called Tarot reading. Let's keep this article about the evolution and design of the cards themselves. --Surturz 07:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is ALMOST perfect!!

"The tarot is a set of cards featuring 21 trump cards and a special card called "The Fool", in addition to the usual suit (face and pip) cards found in ordinary playing cards. Tarot cards are used throughout much of Europe to play Tarot card games[1].

In English speaking countries, where the games are largely unknown, Tarot cards came to be utilized primarily for divinatory purposes[1]." The first paragraph is PERFECT!!!! Complete neutrality. The only problem is the second paragraph. This state of affairs as it pertains to tarot is not exclusive to English speaking countries. It is also the case in Spanish speaking ones for example. This is a BIG improvement, though. Bravo! Smiloid 07:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC) ooops! Someone forgot to mention the Knights, well actually the Queens were the foreign element at this time. We're not playing with a full deck so to speak. Otherwise it's quite good.Smiloid 07:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Developmental psychological aspect of the Tarot trumps

The 'Psychological' section keeps disappearing. Which is annoying as I am trying to add to it by mentioning Dr Leary's developmental take on the trump cards.

Pendodecahedron 12:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)pendodecahedron 24/01/07

It hasn't disappeared, it's been moved to Tarot reading. Sorry for the inconvenience --Surturz 00:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Gaming

The reason I changed the header for the game section to Using Tarot cards to play games was due to confusion that can arise with the use of the word "gaming". In English speaking countries, the word gaming implies legal gambling. In fact it says so right in the intro section of the gambling article. See reference 1 in that article for a U.K. definition. We use gaming in the U.S. in the same way. The gambling on Indian reservation land is called "gaming". I didn't want to cause confusion for readers—making them think tarot cards were used for gambling. I think it is more clear the way I worded it (or something similar). - Parsa 17:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. How about "Card Games"? I'm trying to keep the English parallel.--P Todd 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's better. It just sounds like it's about the games rather than the cards. I though of card games also initially. - Parsa 02:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Critics" section clean-up needed

Now that Tarot reading has been broken out into a separate article, we need to clean up the "Critics" section and move items over to the appropriate relevant sub-article.--P Todd 22:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I would look for books and articles in which people are critical for whatever reason, not just general statements. That's how all the weasel sentences crept in. Religious and anti-occult groups will have books and tracts out no doubt. I know of some sourced stuff I can post in that section of the new article as well. To my mind, sections on critcism and trivia are of lesser encyclopedic importance when compared to factual and historical information. - Parsa 01:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the section, as I feel that it adds no value to the article. It could be reinstated if the debate over Tarot cards had any merit, or was interesting historically. If there were scientific experiments that involved Tarot cards, perhaps they might be worth mentioning. If somewhere they tried to ban Tarot decks, it might be worth including. However, the simple fact that some people love Tarot and some people hate Tarot is not worthy of inclusion - the same could be said about anything. --Surturz 01:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Links to sites related to tarot card interp.

User:Mystie010--Please put all links related to the interpretation of tarot cards on the Tarot reading page now that we have one. We are trying very hard to keep this page focused on the origin of tarot cards to avoid the bias wars we had prior. Please review the archives to see what we will get into again if you continue to persist to re-add your link.--P Todd 21:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Kaballah and Tarot

The article implies that Kaballah and Tarot weren't related until the 19th cent. occult movement. I assume that's a reference to the Golden Dawn. Or Papus. But that's more of an assumption than anything. The cards first appeared, albeit in a somewhat different format, at the same time and in the same place as a flowering of non-Jewish interest in Kaballah.

I raise this here because 1) I'm not sure how to correct the article, 2) I'm a newbie and would rather not do harm in an attempt to do good, and 3) I'd like to see if anyone else has strong opinions. Adistius 00:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Tarot and Qaballah have a 1 to 1 correspondence, and are almost certainly paralell descriptions of the same mythic archetypes. The history presented here is propagandist christian; it assumes that Tarot was started in Italy, which is patently culturacidal because the cards are part of pagan European mysticism, and they did all they could to kill off the pagans. Italies versions were propagandist toy versions of the original, copied without an understanding of the meanings and changed to suit the assumptive interests of the new Italian art culture.

"1 to 1 correspondence" is one interpretation, but a poor one. Parallels between the Tarot and the Tree of Life have been drawn (Eliphas Levy?), but they do not parallel other components of the Qaballah, such as the texts on Gematria. While many neo-pagans have adopted and adapted the Tarot, I seriously doubt any kind of pagan origins (although I'd love to see evidence for such). John Elder 09:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Mantegna t 22:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)Could you offer any evidence for your statement of a Pagan predevelopment? The "normal" knowledge about Tarot cards development in Italy lists various examples of really existing old playing cards called Trionfi and really existent documents which use this word Trionfi.

Prometheuspan 03:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC) yes, there is proof that the trionfi cards actually did exist. No, there isn't proof that this is a verifiable point of origin. Proof can be very hard to come by in a situation involving cultural genocide, however, there are a variety of esoteric proofs and even easier to understand basic arguments.

The first of these is the simple question of sociology and anthropology. Okay, if Tarot is a product of Italian culture of that Time period, where out of that culture did those symbols derivate? The answer is, they didn't and couldn't of, they were obviously symbols from a system the Italians had no knowledge of.

So YOU say, buddy. Can you please give us some proof that the Italians DIDN'T have any knowledge of tarot symbolism? And what symbolism! Empresses, chariots, the sun... the moon. A tower. All of it stuff with which Italians would have been completely and totally unfamiliar, huh? 151.96.0.8 13:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Vince In Milan

Other "proofs" as such hinge on increasingly more esoteric facts, and, as weak an argument as the above sounds, if you know Tarot, it is a VERY sound argument as one starts to apply the basic principle per card. The Tarot is OBVIOUSLY a wheel of the year mythic architecture, the Elementalist perspective would have been an anacronism in Italian culture of that time period.

 http://www.cafetarot.com/en/history.htm

one side http://www.tarothermit.com/infosheet.htm the other side, included for balance, but also to point out that this article wouldn't exist if somebody didn't have a minority opinion. http://www.occultforums.com/showpost.php?p=108263&postcount=24 http://www.geocities.com/astroreports9000/tarot.html

new age noise, but another case of somebody who actually saw the obvious; http://www.psychicsahar.com/artman/publish/article_399.shtml

As a side note, Tarot suffered more than its sister system, the Tree of life, which has also been revisionist histroied to start in the 13th century. Unlike Tarot, the proof of this is patently obvious to any who have studied esoteric judaism. The bibles symbols and images are based on Qaballah, not the other way around. Everything is derivated in Judaism by virtue of the TREE, including even the hebrew language.

At the very least, we can show that the Trionfi is not the original Tarot by refering to the Tarot of the Bohemians. http://www.lulu.com/content/186892 http://www.supertarot.co.uk/thoth/papus.htm http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/tob/tob00.htm

the trail is an easy one to pick up. Heres a half lucid truth-hound; http://www.yhwh.com/Tarot/tarottoc.htm

http://www.tarotforum.net/archive/index.php/t-16731.html There is a lot of good information following the trail of "Taro arot, rota otar" and its probable relationship to "Torah". ("The Wheel of Tarot Speaks the name of Hathor" being one translation.) http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:uhQ4Z2jUQzkJ:www.aquarius-studiesenter.no/documenti/en/gm/MESSAGE_III.pdf+Taro+arot+rota+otar++the+wheel&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8

http://astrospeak.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2564893.cms http://www.tarotforum.net/archive/index.php/t-16727.html

I hope that you see the main issue here is very simple. There are enormously valid reasons to doubt the official history, and no logical or rational evidence that actually disprooves the idea that the Italians just picked up something they had laying around in a vault from the genocide world conquering spree. (This i CAN proove for a fact, these Italians at just this time in history were specifically the inheritors of large amounts of religious loot from a world genocide spree.)

A "world genocide spree". Now THAT's funny! Can you please give us more details about this "world genocide spree"? 151.96.0.8 13:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Vince In Milan

There are a variety of very good reasons why Christian biased scholars would try to hush up any knowledge of an ancient origin for Tarot. The first is that it would beat the bad claim they have for ancient authenticity, if true. The second is that a propperly interpreted Tarot deck also contains information encoded regarding altered states of consciousness. Tarot is a whole lot deeper than a mere accidental art movement in Italy.

At the very least, an objective report would state that the facts in this case have not been proven, and that there is a >>Minority<< but still very real difference of opinion. A more objective report would show why it makes a great deal of sense that the official version is just revisionist history coupled with mass book burnings.

"His" Story is what is written by the conquerers and the winners. Prometheuspan 03:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC) There is a large body of evidence for a minority opinion that Tarot is of European Pagan or Egyptian Origin, and at least as old as verbal language, because Tarot is a verbal language prequel; It is a Hieroglyphic language. Prometheuspan 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Smiloid 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Actually the Tarot is of European Christian (Catholic) origin. The images on the trump cards are predominantly Christian in character. There is no direct influence of paganism in its design.Smiloid 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Smiloid 00:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry but there is no evidence linking Kabbalah with Tarot.

Prometheuspan 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC) If you had said "little" you might have gotten away with it. The 1 to 1 par of number set, symbol meaning, and probable real histories are all admittedly weak evidence, however, for some people, that evidence is sufficient to at least warrant the intellectual honesty that we don't really know with certainty one way or the other. Prometheuspan

01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, there are properly only 21 trumps in the Tarot deck. The Fool, because of its role in the original Tarocchi game, is not actually a trump.

Prometheuspan 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Yes, well, if I am right, then the fact is that Tarochi was just the Italians picing up something they knew nothing about as an art Gimmick. Tarochi becomes a historical fact, but hardly a point of origin. More pointedly, If i am right there is no such thing as "Trumps" as a "Trump" is any card in a card game playing situation which for whatever reason is superior to the average card. Prometheuspan 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Smiloid 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)There is no correspondence, because the Fool belongs to its own category. There are only 21 actual trumps in a tarot deck. Smiloid 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Numeric coincidence is not sufficient to establish such a link. Prometheuspan 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

However, 1 to 1 symbolic correspondence is a much stronger proof. Prometheuspan 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There are exactly 22 properties on the Monopoly game board.

Prometheuspan 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Irrelevant red herring Smiloid 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Why wouldn't Monopoly have some Kabbalistic connection, if Tarot is presumed so?Smiloid 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Does this mean there is some sort of link between the Monopoly game and the Hebrew alphabet and thus Kabbalah? Secondly, there are no surviving documents prior to Antoine Court de Gebelin's Primitive World linking Tarot cards with anything Kabbalistic, occultic or pagan.

Prometheuspan 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC) And, There were genocides. And there were book burnings. So of course, there wouldn't be a lot of surviving evidence, because it was all intentionally destroyed. Prometheuspan 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Smiloid 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)I wouldn't deny the existence of persecution by Christians but to base a conclusion on destroyed evidence lacks the falsifiablity requirement. One could easily assert that unicorns and mermaids once existed but all the fossil records were destroyed. Smiloid 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

All existing documents prior to PW mentioning Tarot/Tarocchi mention Tarot only in the context of a trick-taking game.

Smiloid 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Ok, here I would amend this. Devil cards were alleged to have been used by alleged witches in the 15th century. Trump XV was a widely circulated image of the devil so it was convenient for "witches" to use them. It does not follow that the entire deck was considered a divination tool. Also I have yet to see any document prior to the 18th-19th centuries asserting a Tarot/Kabbalah connection.Smiloid 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Actually factually untrue. Prometheuspan 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

The best evidence so far indicates that Tarot was originally conceived as a trick taking card game and all this "occultic" interpretation stems from the imaginations of 18th-19th century occultists.

Prometheuspan 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Whos best evidence? With which serious baises? Prometheuspan 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I am not a fundamentalist Christian. I am an atheist. My interest in this subject stems from my involvement in the playing of Tarot/Tarock card games of Europe. Smiloid 00:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC) smiloid

Prometheuspan 01:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Okay, however, in this matter, being an Atheist is essentially the same thing as being a Christian. Its the same set of biases. I will again repeat, I am WELL AWARE that mine is a "Minority Opinion". Be aware that mine is also an EXPERT Opinion.

"Expert"? Based on what? All you've done so far is bring up a bunch of nameless pagans, admitted that most of your evidence would have been burnt, and insist that italians, who were among the most cultured people at the time would have been unable to understand Tarot symbolism even though most of it consisted of objects thay would have been throughly familiar with. 151.96.0.8 13:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)Vince In Milan

Smiloid 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Athiesm is a bias, but it's not the same bias as a fundamentalist Christian. The Christian fears of going to hell and the atheist rolls his eyes. I don't believe one's "soul" is at stake here. Just as I would not give discredited notions such as "Intelligent Design" or "Creationism" the same weight as Evolution theory, I would not give spurious Egyptian or Kabbalah connections the same weight as researched playing card history when it comes to the Tarot game.Smiloid 00:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)Smiloid 00:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this argument is still going on, but I felt a need to give another view. After years of studying tarot, I consider myself fairly knowledgeable, and the above idea that the cards originated pre-Christianity is pretty far fetched.

The cards clearly represent popular Christian imagery of the time. As the article correctly noted, you can find similar symbols in the poetry of Petrarch, the church art of the time, etc., with some ideas borrowed from Greek and Roman mythology. In fact, one of the painters who did one of the earliest decks actually painted the same images inside chapels and cathedrals around Italy.

Here's a link to two widely recognized tarot experts who took a tour of Italy to explore the tarot's origins: http://home.pacbell.net/mkgreer/TarotTour.html

I am a pagan and a long-time tarot reader, so I understand the above user's frustration with not being able to claim tarot as our own. However, honesty compells me to come down on the side of tarot as a relic of Christianity.A.V. 03:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Lots of work to do

A while ago I wrote the tarot article for the German WP (de:Tarot) but I have barely touched this one. Partially that is because this one is, in my opinion, a bit of a mess. Then again, my idea what a good article would be might differ significantly from what others here think, and hence I want to put up these points for debate first.

Historical stuff is spread through almost all headings of the text, but IMO it would be better to have it in one place. Also, the history of the cards could and probably should be kept somewhat more seperate from the use of the cards, at least until the rise of explicitly esoteric decks. Actually, a text on the history of the cards themselfes might very well be put into a seperate article; especially since large parts of that would also be relevant to tarot (game).

Prometheuspan 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Additionally, since the Origins and History are actually a topic of speculation, conjecture, and History rewrites, it might be best to keep the politics away from the rest of it. I think a primary mention here of two or three alternate versions of history and then a depth exploration of proofs on a seperate page is warranted. Prometheuspan 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, there is stuff that is more speculation than fact ("There is no reason to be confident that the surviving set of Major Arcana is complete. Of the four Classical Virtues, only Fortitude, Justice and Temperance remain. Can Prudence have always been missing? The Christian Virtues that would ordinarily complete them (i.e., Faith, Hope and Charity) [There are other cards which deal with these. For example the Star] are missing, however." - which also is straight from another website, too [1].) I suspect that far more bits are straight from other websites, too. (See the beginning of "Symbolism"; that bit also has some serious NPOV issues.)

Prometheuspan 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC) What you are looking at is a ghost image created by two systems both loosely based on the Tree of Life. In one version of history, they are seperated by a bout 500 years, and in the other version of history by several thousand. Prometheuspan 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Then, there is reason to be confident that the surviving set of Major Arcana is complete?

Prometheuspan 00:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC) No, actually, there is plenty of reason to assume that some of the cards didn't make it for being too obviously pagan. 21 and 22 do not fit well into correspondence systems, many people have hypothesized that there must have been at least 24 major Arcana Cards. This works better with the Wheel of the Year, and all sorts of other things. Sadly, short of a time machine, we won't ever know oneway or the other with certainty. Prometheuspan 00:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Virtues were derivated from Tree of life principles, 500 years before your alleged creation of the Qaballah and Tarot. Tarot was derivated from Tree of life in the same manner, but earlier. The systems do not have a 1 to one par, the correspondence is imperfect. To put it another way, yes, there is a correspondence here, but its weak. Prometheuspan 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Or is the missing Virtue something it is not permitted to notice? The missing card would not be noticed nowadays without drawing a little attention to it, carefully phrased not to express a point-of-view. --Wetman 11:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Then there is the issue of "divination" - many contemporary readers (and not just contemporary ones, either) are not that fond of this word or the concept behind it, and prefer instead to use the tarot as a tool for self-awareness and similar. (for example "Tarot card readers generally believe that Tarot cards simply allow them to exercise an innate psychic ability to see the future." - that is a highly problematic statement, since most tarot readers I know of, and that includes quite a few high-traffic mailing lists, believe nothing of the kind.)

Prometheuspan 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Tarot as used for divination purposes was the invention of the Bohemians. Until that Time it was a mythologocal storyboard chronicling the wheel of the year. Prometheuspan 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Also missing, IMO, is any information on interpreting the cards.

Prometheuspan 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Apparently, the department has grown since this was written. Honestly, interpretation should be left to single cards, and specific card groups. While we are at it, the divisions of types of cards is slightly off; Its 40 minor arcana cards (set and setting), 12 or 16 face or personality cards,(Dramatae Personae) and 21,22,or 24 Major arcana (plot developments) Prometheuspan 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the article couldn't even begin to give complete information there, but I think I did a decent job on de with providing the readers with an idea of that matter. Anybody who reads some German is most welcome to comment on whether it would be a good idea to incorporate some things from the German article. -- AlexR 21:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

A separate history section would be welcome, as would some additions to the references. Would a very great deal of information have to be suppressed? A report on interpretation would not be the same as a personal essay on the "right" methods, of course. -Yes? -Wetman 11:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The other tarot articles

There are several more articles dealing with Tarot, see Category:Tarot; many of them in need of some work, too.

Particularly, there are articles on all of the majors (Category:Tarot card) which are partly one-line stubs, and partly what seems to be copies from the Waite-book; the latter of course being highly problematic because well, they don't bother to tell that this is one specific interpretation of one specific deck. That means there is a lot of work to do there, too. -- AlexR 21:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Smiloid 04:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)This article should be titled "Tarot (divination)" The only objection I have with the article is that it defines "Tarot" principally in terms of its divination uses. As Tarot was originally a card game and still is in many places and it's awareness as a classic card game has been slowly increasing around the world for the past 2 decades, I would recommend that a search for the word "tarot" lead to the disambiguity page. Because defining "tarot" as a divination vehicle indicates a pro-occultic bias regarding the use of the cards, I would have to dispute the article's neutrality. There are Tarot/Tarock game players who have objections to how the word "Tarot" has often been defined in terms of the occult. For the Wikipedia article to be truly unbiased, I would retitle the article "Tarot (divination)" just as the article on the French Tarot game is titled "Tarot (game)" Smiloid 04:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

wHoStory?

This is patent Status Quo Christian Revisionist history. As a pagan i find it insulting to my intelligence that this is what Wikipedia has come up with. As a Wikipedian, I would have thought at the very least somebody would think to include the "minority" opinion. Prometheuspan 01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I too am a pagan and a tarot expert. I find the article to be fairly accurate, along the lines of every tarot history I've read. Do you have any good sources for your assertion that the tarot history is not what is generally accepted? A.V. 04:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Tarot(divination)

Smiloid 09:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC) I've changed the name of the article to "Tarot (divination)" because defining "Tarot" exclusively in terms of divination is not only biased but outdated given the research done by Michael Dummett et al. and increasing awareness of Tarot as an actual card game. I've also added to the objections section as there are more than two points of view on the subject; not just card readers and Christians.Smiloid 09:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew letter associations

Some of the individual card pages declare Hebrew letter associations, which in my opinion are open to interpretation (some start with Magician=Aleph, others Magician=Beth, I support the former and can make a logical case for it). I think the Tarot article should expand on this subject and its origins. Maybe there is place for a heading for Associations under Origin and history? It can also list the Astrological associations which were made. Aeclectic Tarot thread --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. 15:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if i wanna give any more useful information as it seems that what will be required is for somebody to do the thing correctly instead of politically Pseudochristian, but i suppose i can see my way clear to continue this conversation and see if its worth it.

If you are serious about the language aspect, once again the way to figure it out is to use the tree as teh primary mnmemonic. This is what the Jews did, and how they coded their language. Since there is a 1 to 1 correspondence between Tarot and the tree, the whole language can be encoded on Tarot. This in turn codes some phonetics, and even some grammar, which in turn can be used to derivate corresponences for almost any language. In particular the runes correspond very well. The Astrology correspondences are complicated in that there are multiple ways that astrology corresponds. Again, the best way to sort is to use the Tree as the primary mnemonic. More and many more other interesting things correspond, including the I ching, and thus binary code and thus DNA/RNA sequences.

Theres more and more; because Tarot is in fact a symbolic language it actually covers a lot of turf. The elemental correspondences quickly inflate to a year long cycle correspondence, and this in turn lends itself very rapidly for mythological correspondences for any of the myths involving a year and a day cycle; ie persephone, the oak and the holly, and etc etc.

There are also some very important trance technology correspondences which unlike some of the other correspondences were actually part of the intentional coding. As well as life cycle and evolutionary correspondences equal to the modern concepts of stages of development. The base information given for the cards according to most authors is junk.

Somebody ought to ask themselves wether we want to create an authentic recreation of Tarot to the best of our ability, or a neutered tarot as has been done almost anywhere else. The fact is that Tarot is an ancient mythological system, and this is obvious to anybody who studies tarot deeply. If we must argue the point, then i'd rather just go do something somewhere else.

Not sure if i wanna give any more useful information as it seems that what will be required is for somebody to do the thing correctly instead of politically Pseudochristian, but i suppose i can see my way clear to continue this conversation and see if its worth it.

If you are serious about the language aspect, once again the way to figure it out is to use the tree as teh primary mnmemonic. This is what the Jews did, and how they coded their language. Since there is a 1 to 1 correspondence between Tarot and the tree, the whole language can be encoded on Tarot. This in turn codes some phonetics, and even some grammar, which in turn can be used to derivate corresponences for almost any language. In particular the runes correspond very well. The Astrology correspondences are complicated in that there are multiple ways that astrology corresponds. Again, the best way to sort is to use the Tree as the primary mnemonic. More and many more other interesting things correspond, including the I ching, and thus binary code and thus DNA/RNA sequences.

Theres more and more; because Tarot is in fact a symbolic language it actually covers a lot of turf. The elemental correspondences quickly inflate to a year long cycle correspondence, and this in turn lends itself very rapidly for mythological correspondences for any of the myths involving a year and a day cycle; ie persephone, the oak and the holly, and etc etc.

There are also some very important trance technology correspondences which unlike some of the other correspondences were actually part of the intentional coding. As well as life cycle and evolutionary correspondences equal to the modern concepts of stages of development. The base information given for the cards according to most authors is junk.

Somebody ought to ask themselves wether we want to create an authentic recreation of Tarot to the best of our ability, or a neutered tarot as has been done almost anywhere else. The fact is that Tarot is an ancient mythological system, and this is obvious to anybody who studies tarot deeply. If we must argue the point, then i'd rather just go do something somewhere else. Prometheuspan 03:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to post links to sources that show a different history than the generally accepted one.

I'm a little bothered by your assertion that anyone who studies tarot deeply would come to your conclusions. I've studied tarot deeply, I'm a reader and a pagan, yet I'm comfortable accepting the obvious: that the tarot came from 1500's Italian Christian imagery.

Most other tarot experts that I know of agree with the basics of the Wiki article: http://home.pacbell.net/mkgreer/TarotTour.html http://www.tarothermit.com/

A.V. 04:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 17:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC) Sorry you are bothered. However, and more to the point, even the standard short version of your side is 13th century, not 15th.

Its not my fault you are not paying attention. If you are indeed any kind of pagan, then the wheel of the year mythomorphic architecture SHOULD be GLARINGLY obvious.

Further, as i stated, the fact of the matter is that the documents we do have date to the 13th century. This only means that the documents we do have date to the 13th century. Nothing int he evidence actually supports the contention that Tarot started then. Nothing.

I misspoke in mentioning the 1500's when I meant fifteenth century, or around 1450. Playing cards apparently arrived in Europe in the mid 1300's. The best history I can find of the tarot and its origins is the book 'Mystical Origins of the Tarot' by Paul Huson. I've seen no acceptable modern source that disputes his research, much of which appears to have made it into the Wiki article.

As to your unsourced opinion, I have no idea what 'mythomorphic architecture' is (I don't think mythomorphic is even a word), and I'll thank you not to question my 'paganess'. A.V. 21:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the name change?"

Smiloid 21:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)I changed it to "Tarot (divination)" for greater clarification to remove a biased, ahistorical, and outdated definition of "Tarot". Tarot is really a card game. An article about any extra ludic aspects of a game should thus be qualified. It may have been a popular stereotype for many years to define "tarot" in terms of fortune telling or divination but this is no longer adequate. The days of the 1970's in which Stuart Kaplan and US Games monopolised all things Tarot are behind us. For many of us, not necessarily French people, Tarot is a classic card game. Thanks to researchers such as Michael Dummett and also the spread of the internet, there are more people becoming aware of Tarot as a competitive card game and many of us, although still in the minority, are thinking of Tarot primarily as a card game and as nothing else. In fairness, if Tarot (game) is a qualification even though Tarot is originally a card game, then why not qualify the cartomantic and other extra ludic aspects of this word. Divination, cartomancy, fortune telling and the like should NOT be the PRINCIPAL definition of Tarot. Since many card readers do not see themselves as "fortune tellers", divination may not be appropriate either. For these extra ludic aspects of "tarot" I've changed the title again to "Tarot (cartomancy, meditation)"Smiloid 21:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, kindly put new topics on the bottom of pages, and second, stop moving the page around like a maniac, you have no right to move it at all, since the page as it was already contained a disambig. And certainly you can't move it around from title to title just because you can't make up your mind to anything except being a PITA. Such things are discussed here in the Wikipedia first, until a consens is reached, even if technically crusaders can do what they want, that does not make it legit. -- AlexR 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Tarot Wiktionary

OK, Alex, Let us discuss. I assume you put the link to the Tarot Wiktionary on the disambiguation page. Did you read the definition? "Tarot 1. A card game played in various different variations 2. Any of the 78 cards used in fortune telling." Notice it gives the card game definition first and the fortune telling definition second? I am not being capricious with the page movements. It is highly disengenious to define a game in terms of extra ludic activities. This is why definition definesit as a game first. I do not understand why you insist upon a definition of "Tarot" which many feel is culturally biased and dated.Smiloid 06:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Trump XIII Death

Why the undue focus on the Death Trump? To me this reeks of sensationalism. This is the trump reported to be left behind by snipers and serial killers. I have the Rider Waite Smith deck. The yellow box shows the Magician, so wouldn't this card be more representative of Tarot decks than Death? I have a substantial tarot deck collection and I don't recall the Death Trump being prominently featured on the box on any of them, It's usually the Fool or the "Magician"Smiloid 07:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Facts for Alex, "Tarot" versus "Tarot Reading"

From Wiktionary

tarot

1.A card game played in various different variations. 2.Any of the set of 78 cards used in fortune telling. [edit] Quotations 1987, Hans Hahn, “Logic, Mathematics, and Knowledge,” in Unified Science, Brian McGuiness ed. [...] it is not that I cannot convince him, but that I must refuse to go on talking with him, just as I shall refuse to go on playing tarot with a partner who insists on taking my fool with the moon. 1996, Jan Potocki, The Manuscript Found in Saragossa [1] They took me to her and then we all came back to the portal, where we started playing tarot. As we were engrossed in this game, which requires quite a lot of attention, a well-dressed man appeared and seemed to examine us all closely, first one then another. 2001, Donald Davidson, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation [2] In explaining what it is to play tarot we could not leave out of account the rules that define the game; [...] Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tarot"

The Hans Hahn 1987 quote is very telling, The Fool in the Austrian style Tarock game can take the Mond (moon, derived from a German misunderstanding of French "monde") This is clearly a description of the Austrian card game. The other quotes refer to "playing" tarot not reading it. In this Wiktionary entry, Tarot is primarily understood as a card game.

See also the definition of Tarot given by the Taropedia website: "Tarot' refers to a family of games played with an augmented deck, (that is, decks with a fifth "suit" serving as permanent trumps), and also to the decks themselves." This website which is run mainly by tarot card readers and deck collectors is giving what sounds like a rather ludocentric definition to me.

Also we have the voice of card reader Jess Karlin in his Tarot FAQ" How do I use a Tarot deck to play a game? Many games have been invented to play with Tarot or Tarocchi. Tarot cards were almost certainly created to play games, not to read fortunes or to represent occult philosophies, so it is with the games of Tarot that one is really using the deck in its oldest and (some would say) purest application."

disambiguation

I concede I may have overused the disambiguation feature as it would be convenient for most users to be directed here instead of disambiguation pages. For purposes of practicality I will leave this alone. However for NPOV purposes, I still maintain the article should be renamed as "Tarot Reading" as it is the primary focus of the article.Smiloid

Fine, and now go crusade elsewhere. And stop addressing me personally, I am hardly the only person who thinks that your actions somehow were not appropriate. Also, learn how to format pages and how to sign your entries, if you ever want to be taken seriously here. Newbies who fill talkpages with their rants and move pages around till each and every link is broken just piss off about everybody here. And I don't care how many quotes you find (or make up), there are lots more about the predominant use in English, which is not the card game. Which is exactly what the survey you quote shows, but I don't think that you give a bloody damn about facts, nor about Wikipedia policy; otherwise, you would have spared us your moving spree. -- AlexR 15:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Alex

I do not mean to get under your skin. Please read my last edit before deleting. Your are correct when you say that divination is part of the more common view of Tarot in our societies. That is what I put in the last edit! I put it there because it is a fact. You have erased your own fact! It is also a fact that there are challenges to this more common view. I put two indisputible facts in the intro. Alex, I admire your committment to progressive causes so I do not want to flame you. I am sorry if I am upsetting you. My last edit did not move stuff around or change definitions. I merely stated the fact as you yourself said regarding the common view of tarot and also the fact there is controversy Best wishes, peace!Smiloid

This is YOUR fact, Alex

You and I agree, that this is the common use in the anglophone world. That was my last edit. It is counter-productive for you to erase material on which you and I both agree!Smiloid

If you are refering to your edit in the disambiguation link - first, they are not there to discuss things, they are just there to refer people to other topics which they might have been looking for under this title, hence your edit just did not belong there. Second, yes, well, obviously you disagree, but is that noteworthy and relevant enough to go anywhere into this article? I doubt it. -- AlexR 03:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Tarot should be nuttin' but new age woo!

You win, Alex. Enjoy your biased and outdated definitions.Smiloid 06:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC) My bad! Forgot my sig!

Btw While I am still here

For clarifications Alex, you are correct in your criticisms of my attempt to redirect without discussions. For this I apologize for any disruptions this may have caused. Your point that my comments in the disambig paragraph may have gone beyond such a paragraph's purpose does not escape me. However your denial that dissent exists concerning the popular conception of "Tarot" I must say is wrong. Tarot trick taking games have attained a small cult following in the USA and in other countries. In the 21st century where an American may play French Tarot with someone in China, such cartomantic hedgemony concerning Tarot is showing its age. Your desire to maintain this existing hedgemony is the one point I must disagree.Smiloid

If I would indeed claim that there was only one use of the word "Tarot" in the English speaking world, I would have long removed the disambiguation. Since I a) did even before you turned up consider it very likely that some English-speaking people would play the card game, and b) many people who use the tarot for divination (in a very wide sense) are also aware of the card game, I would however have inserted such a disambig if it had not already existed. What you claim, though, through your actions, is that the game is as well-known and as-often assiciated with the word as is the use for divination, which is simply not true. If you and a few friends disagree with that, or rather think it should not be so, that is hardly enough reason to change the article. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Hence sticking to the present predominant use and reverting "but it should be so!" edits does not mean I deny that dissent exist -- if I ever had, which was not the case, you would have made it very clear that it does. Question however is, is that relevant enough -- relevant in general use, that is, not your personal preferences. It obviously is not relevant enough to make Tarot a disambig, but relevant enough to have a disambig on top of the page. Your rants of "cartomanic hegemony" and "occultism" will, I may add, hardly do those who want to promote the term as description of the card game any good. Crusaders are rarely welcome, and that is because they may have a point, but nobody bothers to look for it if they behave like a PITA, which is precisely what you did. And your demonstrably false claims regarding my opinion don't really show that you got the point, either. So how about getting a clue about both manners and Wikipedia, and when you have those, you are welcome to come back and do some good work. But not until then. -- AlexR 12:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV title

There has been a substantial increase in the number of persons over the years, even in the Anglo-American world, who regard "tarot" as primarily a competitive game. To define "tarot" as mainly an occult or divination vehicle is a biased usage. See "word ownership" and "Anglo-American" biases in Wiki's NPOV sections. Smiloid 23:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that one again -- just because some people in the English speaking world are now playing the card game, we hardly have to move the article. You might check the rules about disambiguation before digging out that nonsense again. See above for dealing with that nonsense. -- AlexR 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a dispute over this definition. For a growing number of people, card reading is NOT really Tarot. I did NOT re-direct. I put on a NPOV template. Accept that dispute exists and strop trying to censor. Anyway a re-direct may still be in order due to the length of the article. Perhaps it could be split into an article dealing with history and another dealing with divination.Smiloid 17:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am escalating this - went to WP:3O already, because this time I will not bother to discuss exactly the same thing again as a few weeks ago (and I don't think the facts have changed since then, either). I am perfectly willing to go all the way up to arbitration. Talking with you is onviously a waste of time. -- AlexR 21:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Third Opinion

This article was listed on Wikipedia:Third_opinion. It seems the current dispute arises over the use of an NPOV tag, however, I must confess that even after a careful reading of the talk page, history and disambiguation page I can't quite discern what the POV being pushed is supposed to be. Smiloid, you seem to have accepted that the most common use of the term in the Anglophone world relates to the using of the cards in divination so I cannot see why you would object to this page being the main page. The policy of word ownership is clearly intended to avoid disputes over the precise, "real", definition of words and to allow for other definitions to be given voice. The disambiguation section at the top clearly fulfills this requirement. As to the Anglo American bias, I think this particular example falls somewhat outside the scope of what that policy was supposed to rectify and, in any case, I'm not aware of any significant differences in what the word "tarot" signifies within the English speaking world.

I think it would be best if the NPOV tag remained off for the time being until Smiloid can make clear what POV it is he is objecting to. In addition, I've noticed a lot of heated, sometimes personal remarks being made in the various talk pages so I think it might be best if both editors take a step back and a deep breath before continuing the debate. Daduzi 22:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

First, I want to state I have no personal issues with Alex. He is quite correct to criticize my earlier attempts to move this page without discussion. I am appreciative of his constructive criticisms. I also want to thank him for escalating the topic as we do need a 3rd party. I also wish to thank you, Daduzi for your intervention. The template I used was POV-title as I felt defining "tarot" principally in terms of divination activities does convey a subtle bias. Although such usage is common in the Ango-American world, such usage is based on now discredited hoaxes concerning the decks origins. Recent reseach on tarot history have established that the cards were created primarily for a trick-taking game. Game historians, as well as some game players, nowadays treat tarot as primarily a card game and some have expressed dismay over what may be called an hedgemonic definition of this game utility in connection with the occult. For a number of people, although currently in the minority, the REAL Tarot is the card game and NOT the divination activities. The mention of tarot decks in Brown's "Da Vinci Code" has also brought some Christian critics on message boards debunking Brown's ahistorical treatment of tarot along with Brown's other notions. What has come to be called the conventional understanding of tarot in the English speaking world has in fact come under fire in recent years. I see criticism of it occasionally on game websites, on skeptic forums, as well as on some Christian sites largely because of Dan Brown's book. Since the article in question is quite lengthy as we are told when editing it, I propose we have one article purely on tarot history, and a different one on tarot spreads and divination.Smiloid 00:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

3rd opinion by Hetar

While a growing number of people may be inclined to favor Smiloid's definintion, I think that the mainstream and popular definition for this phrase is in accordance with the current article. Daduzi made some excellent points above and the disambiguation notice at the top of the page is more than sufficient to remedy any confusion in what the readers are looking for. --Hetar 22:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

other issues besides biased definitions

Perhaps you are correct to state that the gaming aspect of tarot is not sufficiently mainstream to challenge currently popular definitions on Wikipedia. I'll even quote the Wikipedia founder himself for you "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." To re-direct based upon this subtle bias may perhaps be premature at this time. For other reasons, I still think that Tarot history and Tarot spreads or layouts should be in separate articles as they are, in fact, two different topics. For example, the rules of chess and the origins of chess are given in two distinct articles. I am most interested in your replies.Smiloid 05:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any objections to separating the history out into a separate article (providing there's enough information to warrant a separate article). Indeed, given the fact that Tarot usage diverged relatively late in the history of the cards a separate history article would make a lot of sense. I would stress, though, that the divination article should remain the main article, on the basis that it is a reasonable assumption that most users would expect an article on the use of Tarot cards in divination upon pressing "Go". Daduzi 01:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course we should have a section on divination. I'm thinking that maybe "Layouts and Spreads" along with The Great Cross ("Celtic Cross") and other descriptions of the spreads should perhaps have a separate article. Rider Waite Smith and Tarot de Marseille have their own articles. In fact, it appears that individual tarot cards already have their own articles,LOL. We would of course leave the paragraph called "Divination" as well as the one called "Opposition" but much of the material between those 2 paragraphs might warrant a separate article.Smiloid 09:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think such a drastic division is necessary, as the article is not of overly great length. I'd also stress that anything that would be of interest to somebody searching for information about the use of Tarot in divination should remain on this page, and that includes more than just the divination and opposition sections. That being said I, personally, wouldn't see that much wrong with trimming down some of the sections you mentioned and separating them off into other articles (provided enough material can be found to warrant a separate article). This is just my personal view, however, and other editors may well feel differently. --Daduzi 10:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Symbolism" looks out of place...

Although I agree that the Tarot exhibits almost one-to-one correspondence with the Kabbalah, the "Symbolism" section completely contradicts the rest of the article in a tone that feels like it was lifted verbatim from a book on Tarot.

How should we go about correcting this? Andrew 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You could just give a shot at editing it and other editors will quickly let you know if they don't think that it is an improvement. Jkelly 00:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

Regarding the recent edits, I've put up a citation notice for the claim that "in Asian countries such as Japan, however, the Tarot is often seen as a Christian artifact from the West", though an interesting fact it really needs sourcing, and I deleted the sentence regarding David Parlett's comments since, reading through the context of what he said, it seems more of a general historical comment than opposition to the use of Tarot in divination. Certainly I didn't get the impression that Parlett wants divination using Tarot banned or restricted. --Daduzi 10:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Interest in Tarothas grown in Asia and many Asian made Tarots are included in Kaplan's more recent volumes of his Encyclopedia of Tarot. I've learned of how Tarot is seen in Japan from message boards such as Aeclectic Tarot. I would like to go back and get some documentation on this and put it up here. Unfortunately I cannot read Japanese and I am uncertain how Babelfish would treat a non Indo-European tongue. If there is a Japanese language Wikipedia, perhaps there is someting on it. One of the gaps in this tarot article is the lack of coverage of tarot in Asian countries. I should also mention a POV push by those favouring post-RWS decks. From my experiences on Tarot message boards, I have found many defenders of the traditional TdM type decks. RWS type decks appear to be overly didactic to many TdM fans. There should be someone here to speak up for those older decks as they do have their followers.

Parlett called divination tarot a "perversion" He is an example of a game historian who is critical of such uses. I don't recall any Tarot game players or historians calling for any ban on card reading. Few skeptics or even Christians, or any other type of opponent would seek to ban tarot reading. Does one have to desire restrictions in order to be opposed to something? Tarot game players are critical of tarot divinatioin because it isn't really tarot. Skeptics are critical because it cannot be proven to work. There is also a larger issue involved with the "perversion" of the tarot trick taking game and that is the recent phenomenon of neo-pagan pseudohistory. For example, the circumscribed 5 pointed star often called the pentagram is an example of an artifact stolen by Wiccans and self-styledpagans. This symbol is not really neo-pagan but paleo-Christian. It is still used by Freemasons for example. What some Tarot players have opposed is the similar thievery as it pertains to a classic gameSmiloid 02:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

More on Tarot in Japan: From my babelfishing the Japanese Tarot article, I have found no reference to any "opposition" or "criticism" A native Japanese speaker might want to verify this. Here's what one Japanese poster on Aeclectic Tarot has written "Here in Japan the tarot situation is rather paradoxical. Many youngsters are interested in tarot and other western type divinations, but the lack of knowledge about the western cultures in gereral is very serious. Japanese senior tarotists have repeatedly told younger tarot fans 'Read the Bible thouroughly and gain basic knowledges about Christianity or you can't possibly understand the symbolism of Tarot'. We could say Japanese Tarot fans are more 'Christianised' than the rest.

Those 'Tarot vs Christianity' issues are non-existent in Japan simply because Christians are a minority group, less than 1 percent of whole poplulation. Popular Buddhism and Shintoism are not a religion in the western sense of the word. Everyday some forms of fortune telling can be seen in breakfast shows and prime time TV. Western and Eastern Astrologies, Tarot, I-Ching, Blood-types, shamanism and necromancy, anything goes.

In a word, an island of Le Fou, my Japan. We can buy all the types of tarot cards at bookshops, toyshops, occultshops etc. Spin-off tarots from manga,anime and games are abundant, to the horror of serious fans." What he is saying, I think, makes sense as the true sources of tarot symolism are in fact Christian and not Pagan as some without foundation have claimed. The TdM was created in a Catholic culture and A.E. Waite himself professed to be Christian. The first Japanese Tarot deck the "Angel Tarot" is heavily influenced by the TdM.Smiloid 05:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry the link didn't work for you, Alex

I presume you're referring to the page entitled "History of Egyptian Tarot Decks" http://www.spiritone.com/~filipas/Masquerade/Reviews/historye.html This page is working for me. Try again.Smiloid 02:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Psychology?

This section reminds me of Rorschach inkblot test What do Tarot cards offer, besides prettier pictures, that the inkblots don't? Also the idea of the "subconcious" and other Freudian notions are not universally maintained by psychologists today.Smiloid 06:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC) Since the article is asserting notions now discredited by many psychologists, there's another basis for a NPOV tag. This is NOT mainstream psychology!Smiloid 06:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As a practicing and licensed psychotherapist (Marriage and Family Therapist, not a Psychologist), I have used tarot cards to help patients reflect on archetypal themes when appropriate. I don't do it for everybody, and don't spend a lot of time with it. There are some group activities that I use to spark discussion and members getting to know each other more deeply. I realize that first person research (and testimony?) is not a WP sanctioned part of the article. I do not have any sources to cite, because I did not pick it up from a source. I also learned (the hard way) that this can be a poor idea with patients exhibiting psychotic symptoms unless the deck is carefully edited. Tarot cards offer more concrete images than inkblots. And it doesn't matter whether it's mainstream (what is mainstream?) or not. The article asserts that "some" use the cards. That is true. The Jung Institute in Los Angeles used to (and probably still does) sell a deck of "Soul Cards," which, while not Tarot cards, similarly invite deep responses with evocative imagery. John Elder 09:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

@Smiloid

Would you mind using the preview function for your edits in the future, instead of making a dozen edits which one has to go through one by one, or through the history? And don't add any more links unless they are really, really, really a must. We have far too many already. -- AlexR 06:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

As a psychology major, I find the implications of that section to be quite dubious. Tarot is not used by mainstream therapists.Smiloid 23:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out Dr. Art Rosengarten's website. He bills himself as a psychologist and psychotherapist and a diplomate of the American Psychotherapy Association, and uses tarot cards in his psychotherapy practice. But in any event, regardless of what your personal views are, I think the NPOV tag should be removed. --Aquarius Rising 23:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And who exactly has claimed that tarot is widely used by what you call "mainstream therapists"? (Whatever that is supposed to be.) It is used by some, though, and not just esoteric nutcases, either. If you find that there are implications that are false (I didn't, but then I am not hell-bent against this article), correct them, and stop slapping POV-tags and similar into the article. -- AlexR 06:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ode to Freud

I fixed it. I do think that mention of the "subconcious" warrants a link to Freud. If the use of Tarot cards in therapy is based upon theories which many find to be dated, as this article implies, we should mention there are many critics of Jung and Freud these days. As one who sat through the stridently, yet funny, anti-Freudian lectures of my Behaviorist prof, I should know, LOL. Note to Aquarius Rising, Dr. Rosengarten does not have a Wikipedia page. Do you think you might create one, at least a stub, perhaps?Smiloid 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Misleading statement

This theory, however, is not theologically consistent with mainstream Bible interpretation.

By whose interpretation? This is identical to saying, Some say that this is not... This sentence should be removed. 168.103.117.54 18:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The whole section is like that. I added {{verify}} to it in the hopes that someone can provide some sourcing for it. Jkelly 21:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A source would be nice, but I can assure you the information is accurate, at least as far as the major denominations are concerned (I personally am a Lutheran who doesn't believe this, but I can tell you most Lutherans do, and apparantly so do Catholics (as attested to by the nun who gives me music lessons) and the Mormons that I know).

A good point! What is "mainstream Bible interpretation" anyway? Of course, the Bible says nothing specific about Tarot decks as they've yet to be invented. At the risk of becoming tedious, it perhaps should be emphasized that the Tarot is not inherently "occultic" despite its common use as an "insight" tool for the new age woos in our part of the world. The REAL Tarot, not the superstitious tarot to which this article refers, is in fact a classic card game quite suitable for family game night in Salt Lake City.Smiloid 07:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I generalized the critics section, because it's not "just" Christian groups that always object to something like that, and again, as with anything else, there are those who buck the system and don't totally agree with their religion. To preserve the NPOV it's best to take those kinds of references out altogether. If those groups really do disagree that strongly, let them add a section about it to their own WP pages. *LOL* I actually think that the entire "Critics" section really doesn't need to be there. It would also be fine to put a one-liner somewhere else in the body stating there are some people who disagree with the use of Tarot cards. Which would be true, accurate, and NPOV. The article is meant to be informational about Tarot, not a dispute as to its validity or whether or not others agree with it. --Madmumbler 20:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Overall, I second Madmumbler's changes to the "Critics" section (although that last sentence ("As of this writing...") is a bit cheeky). The passage now reads quite a bit more objectively, yet accurately states the case. Also, in response to Smiloid, the "REAL" tarot is simply a deck of cards. What anyone does with them is their business, but of course it would not be appropriate for this article to exclude either the "classic card game" feature or the "common use as an 'insight' tool" for which, you must admit, it is more notorious. The article in fact presents both perspectives. Massjit 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

"As of this this writing, there are no conclusive studies linking the use of Tarot cards with eternal damnation." Of course not! This sentence seems a bit silly to me. LOL How does one study eternal damnation?! LOLSmiloid

Also I'm curious as to why the criticism of game players was deleted. There is in fact a documented school of thought amongst game historians and players that the type of "tarot" to which the article refers is not genuine. Granted it is not as serious a cultural misappropriation as the "New Age" theft of Native American belief systems, but it is nonetheless seen as a type of misappropriation. BTW Madmumbler is correct in generalizing from Christian to religious groups as a whole.Smiloid

Characterizing the well-known and widespread "New Age" uses of tarot cards as "not genuine," "a cultural misappropriation," and "theft" all seem a very distinct POV to me. I do not object to including critical perspectives in this article, but I think there are ways to express this idea more neutrally. Is reading tea leaves (another popular divinatory practice in some parts of the world, see tasseography) a "cultural misappropriation" of drinking tea? Are the tea leaves not REAL tea leaves if they are used in this manner? I don't understand the need to disparage either the tarot game or the "New Age" practice. A scholar would need to understand both in order to have a full and accurate account of this subject, and both perspectives are available here. Massjit 17:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Unlike Tarot, the readers of tea leaves, at least to my knowledge, have not tried to monopolize the concept of tea and they haven't engaged in disinformation practices to obscure the custom of tea drinking. Here are my sources concerning criticism regarding the widespread misrepresentation of Tarot; two of which were written by Tarot's most well known historian:

"The Tarot pack is now very widely known in this country [UK, I presume], indeed in nearly every country, as an instrument of prediction and a document of the occult. It would have been good if those with a taste for magic could have kept their hands off what does not belong to them: they have an abundant literature of their own." from Michael Dummett's "The Game of Tarot"

From the same author's "Wicked Pack of Cards" "The Tarot pack is the subject of the most successful propaganda campaign ever launched: not by a long way the most important, but the most completely successful. An entire false history, and false interpretation, of the Tarot pack was concocted by the occultists; and it is all but universally believed."

from David Parlett's "The Penguin Encyclopedia of Card Games"

"People are often suprised to learn that Tarot cards were originally invented
for playing games, that such games are still widespread and popular in
continental Europe, and that the employment of tarots for divination and
fortune-telling is a relatively recent perversion of their proper use, dating
only from the eighteenth century."

See also the page of Tarock enthusiast Bo Bernville http://hem1.passagen.se/bernvill/tarot.htm How would you incorporate such perspectives in a NPOV manner?Smiloid 02:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothwithstanding the opinions of Mr. Dummett and Mr. Parlett quoted above, I find it absurd to characterize the popularity of the tarot for divination, etc. as the result of a concerted and widespread misinformation campaign against the tarot game. One use does not detract from the other - anyone with a tarot deck can:

play the game
use it for fortune telling
both
neither
use it for wallpaper
rip it to shreds
...and so on

Apparently some tarot game enthusiasts resent that the cards are being used for anything other than playing the game, but even if this was their original purpose, why is it such a problem that another use for the same cards has become popular?

An example of NPOV statment that may summarize the gamer's criticism would be:

Many loyalists to the tarot game object to the use of cards for divination and fortune-telling. They believe the only proper use for the cards is to play the tarot game, and that any other use is a perversion of the deck's original purpose.

A statement such as this presents the critical viewpoint without a tone of accusation or hysteria. Massjit 20:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to make something clear, this is not a criticism of personal usage. It concerns the way tarot cards are commonly marketed. Also, I think the word "deck" is too American for a Wiki article. I don't like "loyalists" or "believe" either as they make the players sound like members of an organized political party or a religious group. Also the concern is not about propriety but authenticity. From a game players' persepective, a less authentic type of tarot has been widely promoted at the expense of a more genuine version. Also, not all players, even those critical of divination, would go so far as to call it a "perversion" We should also make clear there is more than one tarot game. Here's my re-write: "Many enthusiasts of tarot card games have objected to the widespread promotion of tarot cards primarily for divination or fortune-telling. They maintain that the more genuine purpose of the tarot is for the playing of card games." Smiloid 03:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess my simple question is why is it important to bring such information to the attention of readers? Surely as an encyclopaedia it would be better to simply detail the different uses of Tarot and allow readers to decide themselves which is more authentic. Provided the article does not attempt to claim that divination is the more genuine use of Tarot I see no need to put forward an argument that the use of Tarot as playing cards is more genuine; why put forward an alternative view which is not an alternative to anything being expressed? --Daduzi ^talk 04:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

About the Marseilles cards on the article

I think we should put the most known version of Marseilles cards on the article...Particularly, I just disliked those ones...Not only that, but why 2 chariot pictures? Come on...I´m about to edit it and take off those cards, waiting opinion of yours... P.S.: Already done it. - Don Leon Cavalero

You mean there is a more well known version of the Marseilles deck than the one published by Grimaud? Smiloid 05:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I had never seen that browned tone painting in anywhere. - Don Leon Cavalero I understand you now; Replace it with a more well known edition, if you likeSmiloid 06:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC) I've just replaced it with the Grimaud "Le Mat"Smiloid 23:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Beltway Snipers are not "storytelling and art"

I object to the addition of the Beltway Snipers bullet point in the section entitled "Storytelling and Art." This observation is not relevant to this section because it is about actual events, not storytelling or art. I considered moving it to a different section, but don't see a place it really fits in this article. Is it really necessary to include it at all? If so, it should be in a new or different section. Massjit 17:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Well, I just killed it so to speakSmiloid Also I think there should be a reference to the "Da Vinci Code" here.

Capitalization of tarot

Throughout the article tarot is capitalized. Is this the correct usage? Sam 01:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC) Good question, I did a Google search on the word "tarot" and various websites would either capitalize it or leave it in lower case. Both uses are common. However, if you were to refer to a specific deck such as "The Rider Waite Tarot Pack" the word would have to be capitalized as it is part of the title. I see you have it in lower case when posting your question. If you prefer lowercase, then go ahead and edit the article in that way.Smiloid 05:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Perhaps the lowercase would be more correct, as "tarot" is not a proper noun.Smiloid 05:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't quite understand why it would be capitalized. Glad somebody responded, I didn't want to change the capitalization without getting some input. I'm not very familiar with the tarot. Sam 23:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Before taking the trouble, though. I would do a Google on "tarot" on Google Web as well as Google News.

I looked in a couple of tarot books at a bookstore recently and all of the ones I checked did not capitalize tarot. Sam

In retrospect, I'm not sure I checked enough books. Doing a Google book search gives mostly sources that capitalize tarot. However, I don't understand why a common noun like tarot would be capitalized. The only case that comes to mind in which tarot would be appropriately capitalized would be in use of a specific noun such as a name of a deck such as "Eclectic Tarot" or the like. I'd be interested in hearing different opinions so a decision can be made and implemented. Sam 00:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing... Britannica does not capitalize it. Sam 01:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Symbolism section

The Symbolism section of the article begins with ... "The Tarot has a complex and rich symbolism with a long history. Such history is not impenetrable. Contrary to what many popular authors claim, its origins are not lost in the mists of time. In fact, much of the fog around the symbolism can be dispelled if one studies sources other than occultists with a vested interest in the occult interpretation of Tarot. We will do some dispelling further on; in the meantime, the most important thing to note is that modern, occult readings of the cards often have little to do with their meaning in their original context." This seems like pure original research, and also patronizing and talking down to the reader. And what's this line about doing some dispelling further on, and telling the reader that the most important thing to note is to be wary of the vested interests of occult authors writing about tarot? This should be changed at once, in my opinion. 24.18.35.120 00:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Feel free to edit it in any way you see fit. :) Sam 00:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This is NOT original research. The vocabulary of the occultists; "pentacles", "wands", "Arcana" "Magician" "High Priestess" etc. was developed long after the invention of the Tarot or Trionfi (in its original context, a card game) Current players of tarot card games, that is users of tarot in its "original context" seldom if ever use such vocabulary. Remove the condescending tone if you like, but I do think it good advice to "be wary" of those with such "vested intersts" as they have often distored, willingly or otherwise, the history and essence of tarot.Smiloid 00:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the quoted section to remove the condescending tone, to provide more balance and neutrality, and to better reflect the current state of knowledge. I deleted the sentence regarding "readings of the cards often have little to do with their meaning in their original context" since this theme is already explored in the following paragraph. Burdel 13:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Do not move. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Tarot → Tarot (divination) – Current page title conveys subtle bias favoring "occultic" definitions concerning "Tarot" and may not be NPOV. In keeping with NPOV, neither the "occult" definition nor the game historian's definition of "Tarot" should be favored Smiloid 01:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Support Although critics of such a move have been correct in asserting that the "occult" or "divination" definitions are the more common than the game historian's primary definition in many countries, it would be more in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV policies if neither definition is seen as preferred.Smiloid 01:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose I agree with the consensus above, under #NPOV title and thereafter, that this is the primary current sense of "Tarot". Septentrionalis 16:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, this is the more common sense of the word. Having this article as the primary topic does not imply that it is "preferred," only that it is the primary topic. Recury 17:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Although divination or fortune telling may be the more popular APPLICATION of tarot cards, this does not mean that such applications constitute the correct DEFINITION of the word "tarot"

I should also add that besides game players and historians, those sympathetic to tarot reading or to the occult have also started defining "tarot" as a card game or family of card games rather than as a fortune telling or divination tool.

Below are some examples:

From Tarotpedia http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/index.php/Tarot_History

"Tarot' refers to a family of games played with an augmented deck, (that is, decks with a fifth "suit" serving as permanent trumps), and also to the decks themselves."

and from an alchemy related website: http://www.levity.com/alchemy/a-archive_jun05.html

"Tarot is a card game that became elevated in the late 18th century by a misguided writer to the status of a book of esoteric knowledge."

The definition of the word "tarot" as a divination tool is no longer universally held. This is the reason for my proposal to re-direct. Smiloid 08:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The present position of the article doesn't imply that it is universally held; I don't believe in Tarot mysrlf, and I still expect to find this article under this title. Septentrionalis 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The present position does however appear to show a preference for such a definition. Wikipedia is appearing to endorse a particular favored definition of "tarot" with which a number of people no longer agree. I would not use the term "POV pushing" as it would imply an intent but I do see an unconcious bias at work. While there is something to be said for the convenience of finding articles where one expects them, should such conveniences trump, no pun intended, NPOV?Smiloid 02:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

What would be in this article's place? I think it's a good idea as long as bias isn't created yet again by making the tarot (game) article default. There is a respectable number of items on the Tarot (disambiguation) page, what about making it default? Sam 22:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also go along with making Tarot (disambiguation) the default page. Having the tarot (game) article, which concerns the French tarot card game, as the default, I suppose, would be another bias. The disambiguation page would then be the most logical choice. Smiloid 21:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Freemasons and Tarot

I would like to see some citations to back up the claim that Freemasons use tarot as a mnemonic device.--P Todd 01:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

"Books on Tarot" section

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so forgive me if I make a faux pas. The "Books on Tarot" section towards the end of the article is, I feel, speculative and non-factual. Would it be possible to have citations for this section? Here are the problems I have specifically:

"Whilst it is now traditional for a tarot deck to be accompanied by a handbook to the meaning of the cards, this practice was initiated by A E Waite in his Pictorial key to the Tarot, and Waite was the first to explicitly adopt a policy that no deck should be sold from new without an accompanying book, which was written into his contract with Rider. These books are known generically as Little White Books, or LWBs." This paragraph doesn't differentiate between the little white booklets that come with decks and full-size books that are often sold with decks nowadays as kits. Also, I do not believe that anyone knows what Waite's contract with Rider was and I would like to see a citation.

"Although it is generally believed the line drawings, signed "PCS" and the source of Colman-Smith's diminutive "Pixie", reflect the state of the printer's art in the early 20th Century, a brief study of the history of Information Graphics, particularly acid-etching and Victorian technical illustrations, strongly suggests that the Pictorial Key was designed to enable people to make themselves a deck, as it features full-size reproductions of every card, from trumps to pips, which can be easily traced and transferred onto cards in a similar manner to tattoo flash." I feel this is pure conjecture. I don't see any reason to believe that the cards are reproduced in the book for any other reason than as a reference for readers so they can follow along with the book's discussion of the cards' symbolism.

"Despite this, the first Waite clone, the Robin Woods Tarot, although bringing careful and well-planned colouration to Colman-Smith's line drawings as well as lightening the weight of the outlines themselves, was very controversial and the subject of protracted litigation in some countries. The matter of to what extent copyright was infringed is still the subject of some debate." I feel this paragraph is completely non-factual. The Robin Wood deck (not "Robin Woods") is certainly not the first Waite clone. It was published relatively recently, in 1991, and there are many earlier decks including the Royal Fez Moroccan, the Hoi Polloi, and the Morgan-Greer decks which can be characterized as Waite clones. I have been involved with tarot forums and lists for several years and I have never once seen reference to any controversy or litigation concerning supposed copyright infringement by the Robin Wood deck. I would really like to see citation for this one.

I mean no disrespect to the section's author, but if citations cannot be cited for these sentences, then I feel they should be deleted. How is this kind of thing usually handled? If the author doesn't provide citations within a few weeks, can I go ahead and delete them? Burdel 17:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added "verify source" tags. After a week, if the editor who posted them provides no sources, and if no one else objects, I'll delete the tagged sentences. Burdel 22:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Burdel, I wholeheartedly endorse you making edits to or deleting entirely those statements such as you have outlined above that require sources yet do not provide them - in this article or anywhere else on Wikipedia. Massjit 17:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

""Whilst it is now traditional for a tarot deck to be accompanied by a handbook to the meaning of the cards, this practice was initiated by A E Waite in his Pictorial key to the Tarot,.." I am not too sure about that. The RWS is NOT the first occult tarot. The first occult tarots, that is decks created for the purpose of divination and not game playing, were the French "Egyptian" themed decks. I think the creators of these decks may have also created handbooks for them. http://www.spiritone.com/~filipas/Masquerade/Reviews/historye.html Smiloid 03:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has objected and the editor of the section has not come forward, I've gone ahead and deleted the above quoted paragraphs. I've also deleted the following paragraph, since it's composed mostly of the editor's personal review of Kaplan's Encyclopedias: "Various other histories of Tarot do exist, E.g. The Devil's Picture Book, but one other notable corpus on the topic is Stuart J Kaplan's The Encyclopedia of Tarot, which is a thoroughly researched reference to historical and modern Tarots. Volume 1 is widely available through public libraries, though Volume 2 is not so ubiquitous. It is of particular interest to would-be tarot collectors as, although no deck is reproduced completely and the photo's are mainly monochrome half-tones, it is possible to get a better idea of the "look" of a deck from the sample cards reproduced than it often is just from the boxes in which they come."

This means that I've deleted the entire section. So I wrote a new section on Books on Tarot to replace it. I hope you like it! Burdel 13:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Storytelling and art

The "Storytelling and art" section is huge. Would it be in everyone's interest to trim it down? Sam 00:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC) I've noticed that too! It might be best if "Storytelling and art" had its own articleSmiloid 03:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversed Meanings

Be nice to have these too. --Hitsuji Kinno 15:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Section suggestion : tarot and other modalities

I’m a newbie, so try to be patient please. Okay, I tried to add a link to my web site, which was removed forthwith. I understand, but I’d like to discuss being able to add it again because it discusses combining modalities. Here is what I propose: Would it be okay, if I/we create a section that would connect tarot to other things? For example, I think it was the Crowley Thoth Deck that first combined Hebrew text/Kabala, astrology and obviously, Egyptian deities with the tarot.

Although not conventional, and who is to say that tarot is conventional? The tarot has been used to increase the scope of symbolic connections in the twentieth century. What I’m getting at is connecting tarot to animals spirits, Celtic trees, or any number of other things,to note the increase of the symbolic connections being explored. I am working on connecting chakras with tarot – far fetched to some perhaps, but it represents the combining of therapies or modalities. I would like to be able to contribute in this area, and have a link of supporting articles to my website. Would that be okay? Whitelighttarot 20:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Whitelighttarot -- I am also a relative newbie so hopefully if I say something wrong, someone will correct me.

I wasn't the person who removed your link. But I looked at the Wikipedia guidelines for external links, and I noted the following: In the "links to be avoided" section, "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one." Also: "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services."

I visited your website (I guessed at what the web address would be :) ), and I saw a single article about how to find a reader, a small paragraph about associations with the Star card, an offer for free readings, and everything else on the site related to a tarot deck which you have created and which you will presumably sell from the site. So I think your site qualifies as one "that primarily exist[s] to sell products or services." So I would agree that your site shouldn't be linked to in the article.

If you'd like to contribute, why not edit the article by writing an original section as you propose? If anyone doesn't like it, they can discuss it here on the Talk page. I think that would be better than linking to your site, which doesn't seem to contain any such material as you mention anyway. Burdel 20:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Other (Musical) References To Tarot Cards

Claudio Sanchez's album On My Brother's Blood Machine has liner notes in the form of Tarot cards- what most of them mean, however, I haven't an exact answer (their names are in Italian, which I don't speak). Also, I remember hearing (via MTV.com) that the action figures of My Chemical Romance had hand-drawn Tarot cards done by Gerard Way, their singer. Might be interesting additions to this page.

69.115.231.50 03:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Molly, 10:39 P.M., November 04, 2006

Recent activity

Recently much of the article was radically changed in a very short period of time. Though I see some definite improvements in the latest revision I'm reverting it because so much text that could potentially be valuable information has been removed without any discussion whatsoever. Much of the article is indeed repetitious and in definite need of copy editing, but please make it practical for users to compare changes by doing it incrementally and getting a group consensus before making such drastic changes. Sam 03:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

List of the major arcana

As I am new to wikipedia, and I am probably missing something, I felt that I should ask this here before attempting any edits. This page used to contain a brief list of the 22 major arcana, which I though was both in line with the article and very helpful. Recently, that seems to have been removed. Was there any particular reason for that? It seems to me that people looking for a basic reference on the tarot should not have to go further than this page for the basic list, but again, I may be missing something.--151.200.59.216 08:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The list of the major arcana was removed for a short amount of time and then was restored. You will find it now under "Composition". The major arcana also has its own article. Sam 23:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Storytelling and art

I've created a new article devoted to that one topic. I think this would help quite a bit in any efforts to clean up this page. It's hard to decide on which references to "tarot" are significant and which should be deleted without getting into a lot of POV business. For that reason, I've put that entire section into its own space Smiloid 03:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think moving it was a good idea. Tarot cards are everywhere in culture; the list will keep getting bigger and bigger at the cost of valuable space in the main article. Sam 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I am glad to see the spam police at work here. Here are some external links which I have found to be very insightful:

http://www.tarotpedia.com/
http://www.tarothermit.com/index.htm
http://www.geocities.com/cartedatrionfi/
http://www.keypoint.com.au/~skeptics/Tarot
http://skepdic.com/tarot.html
http://hem1.passagen.se/bernvill/tarot.htm
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Tarot_Pack
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/tarot-card.htm

Some of these external links have appeared in this article but were deleted due to page blanking vandalism (check the article history). I think they are worthy of being restored Smiloid 04:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following from the main body text as it seemed to be nothing more than an external link - "Of worth for the situation of the development is the Tarot History Fact Sheet, which was composed on the base of the common ground of various researchers [2]." - perhaps if it should remain then it should be as a single line in the External Links section.

192.93.164.20 12:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree that some of these links contain good information. If Smiloid feels that having these tarot criticism links in the article, I would suggest that he expand the "critics" section for the links that provide a skeptic opinion and add the others to the external link section as suggested above.--P Todd 04:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I can't find any reference to Casanova mentioning tarot in his memoirs, (having searched them via Project Gutenberg). I have flagged it up rather than delete it, though, as various other sites on the internet mention it. 192.93.164.20 11:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You do the math

The following text doesn't seem to add up to me:

'A general far-spread, now traditional, hypothesis stated that the final form of the tarot with a (4x14)+22 structure was settled around 1450. This opinion is based on the suggestion that the surviving 68 Bembo cards had in the "6 added trumps" only replacements for earlier "lost cards"'

The total number of cards is 78, but 68 plus six "added trumps" would make 74. I'm no expert on tarot (I just came here for the copy editing), but can someone make sense of this? 192.93.164.20 12:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The bias issue again

I found another Wikipedian who also feels this article conveys an Ango-American bias over its usage of "tarot" so I've added a couple more tags. Smiloid 00:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about where the Anglo-American bias exists? --P Todd 02:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the comments by User:Parsa on the talk page of the tarot (game) article and you will find that I am currently not the only one on Wikipedia making this charge. Until recent years, the Anglo-American world has largely been kept ignorant of tarot's gaming history by those pushing occult notions of the tarot deck. The popular notion of tarot as a fortune telling device, while common, is based on error. For those familiar with tarot as a type of card game, the pro-occult bias is very apparent. People may do as they wish with the cards, but Wikipedia should not sanction the "new age" movement's continued cultural thievery of the word "tarot" as the default assumption. Should Wikipedia further honor popular misconceptions by renaming an article on Leonardo da Vinci to "Da Vinci" because of an all too common, yet wrong, belief that that is the artists actual surname? I have also recently discovered some damage being done to other Wikipedia articles because of this common prejudice. The Wikipedia articles Skat (card game) and Bonifacio Bembo have nothing to do with divination yet they have both, until I've corrected them, contained links to this article which deals with divinatory tarot. The Skat article obviously used "tarot" in it's gaming context and tarot divination did not exist in the time of Bonifacio Bembo. Bembo designed his tarot deck for game playing. It is highly unlikely that the terms "Major Arcana" and "Minor Arcana" ever entered Bonifacio Bembo's vocabulary. There is a systemic bias on Wikipedia when it comes to things pertaining to tarot because most Wikipedians have seldom been exposed to it in any other context besides the occult one.Smiloid 06:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you that this particular article is oriented towards the occult usage of tarot. There is a disambiguation note at the start of the article that clearly states, "This article is about the structure, card imagery, history, and origin of tarot decks, which today are often used for spiritual, esoteric, psychological, occult and/or divinatory purposes. For the family of traditional European card games, see Tarocchi. For the French card game, see tarot (game). For other uses, see tarot (disambiguation)." Given that this disambiguation note, right up front, points visitors to other articles and a disambiguation page if they are looking for non occult usage of tarot, I don't see the problem. Saying that Wikipedia is "sanctioning" the "cultural thievery" of a word is flat silly. This "thievery" is proven false by the fact that articles exist on other uses of "tarot" and the reader is referred to them. And, Wikipedia itself doesn't sanction anything--you are free to augment the article to attempt to fix any neutrality issues and world-view bias if you wish. Unless you can offers specific examples of bias and neutrality issues, I would suggest that you should remove the tags you've added. If you wish, we could request mediation to settle the debate.--P Todd 04:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The bias is inherent in the default definition of "tarot" in connection with the occult. Yes, there is a big fat disambig on the front. However as along as Wikipedia is defining "tarot" by default in such a manner a subtle bias is promoted. It is the default assumption of tarot in connection with the occult which is conveying the bias so a disamgig may still not be sufficient. Wikipedia is promoting a default assumption which is biased. I think the tags should stay as I am currently not the only one on Wikipedia who is able to see this. Because someone else who was reading or working on the tarot (game) also pointed this out, I slapped on those templates. I think this user should be present for the discussion.Smiloid 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sir, I see from back last year you tried to fight this fight once before when you tried to change the name to Tarot (Divination) and were ruled against. It also looks like an appeal for a third-party opinion was made and that you were requested from that to stop adding NPOV tags. I'm not going to continue to argue with you about it. I believe that your tags are unjustified--especially since your opinion is clearly discussed in the "critics" section of the article in addition to the disambiguity links. I have requested administrative assistance to resolve this matter.--P Todd 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the general article entitled "Tarot" should be about the factual history of the cards and all their various uses. Yes, this includes divination, but it should primarily feature the cards as what they were created to be and still are in many countries--a playing card game. This article is replete with weasel words and non-verifiable historical statements. It is exceedingly poor on source citation, and has a definite Anglo-American bias. Tarot cards have been used as playing cards since the 15th century. Yes, in Italian they are "Tarocco" cards, but this is the English Wikipedia, and the primary reference should be to the English word--Tarot. Wikipedia articles should be based on scholarship, especially peer reviewed sources, not on fancy. The primary scholarly work on Tarot, Michael Dummett's book The Game of Tarot, focuses on the card's original purpose--as a game. The book does devote two chapters to the origin of the occult uses of tarot cards, and Dummett has co-authored two scholarly books on the origins of the divinatory uses of tarot cards. Works such as these should be cited. This article is heavily influenced by very recent trends in the commercial production of divinatory tarot decks, especially those by U.S. Games Systems. The company sold tarot cards in the 1970's as a game, hence the company's name. However, now even their playing card decks, such as the Visconti decks, come with "directions" for divination. U.S. Games in the last couple decades has published an increasing number of divinatory decks--into the hundreds. The terminology used by the company, often originating with Levi and Waite, is used throughout this Wikipedia article. Terms such as "major arcana", "pentacles", etc. have only occult and relatively recent origins. Correct terms such as "trumps" and "coins" are given secondary importance or are not mentioned at all. The bias may come from the fact that Tarot as a game was rarely played in England or America, and so the cards seemed odd and mysterious. This opened the door for occult viewpoints which came to these English-speaking countries primarily from 19th century France. Discussion of the occultist views of the origins of tarot cards should not take precedence over historical research developed by scholars. There is definite knowledge on the origin of most of the features of tarot cards, and on the way that the card iconography evolved in different European locales. There is definite scholarship on the game's development and the geographic spread of the game. The game is still played throughout Europe. In my opinion, Wikipedia would best be served by a general article on the factual history of tarot cards and on all their various uses. The primary stress should be on the game, but sections can be devoted to other uses such as divination. Links can then be placed at the beginning of these sections to "main" articles such as Tarot Divination, Tarot game play, Tarot iconography, etc. This would be the neutral, non-biased way to present the general article. As it stands now, it is an unpalatable melange of sourceless viewpoints, ideas gleaned from unscholarly lay sources, and a pinch or two of fact. It is really not encylcopedic or scholarly in nature. -- Parsa 09:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Having this have a "primary" focus on the game would then bias it the other way. I'll point out again....there is a whole other article on tarot the game. There is also a disambiguation page for Tarot itself. This particular article deals with the occult usage of tarot (in this respect, I almost agree with Smiloid that it should be called "Tarot (divination)" as he had tried to do some time ago). Trying to make one article cover both won't work for it is too wide a topic. There is a line of belief that tarot originated for the occult and that the game geusage of it was secondary as a protection against persecution. Both views of tarot origination history should be presented (in my opinion). I'd also like to point out that the usage of tarot for the occult is not a recent thing--certainly not as new as the 1970s as implied above. The hermetic usage is dated into the mid-1800s. The Waite deck you refer to above was from 1910. The Catholic Church objection to tarot occurred much earlier in the 14th Century lending an acknowledgement that many years ago tarot, while used for gaming, was also used for divination. Tarot for divination is not a new or recent thing.--P Todd 23:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I assure you that I wasn't attempting to make any third party appeal. Parsa's comments on the Tarot (game) talk page came as a surprise to me. Despite being out-voted in the previous round, I felt the bias issue needed to be revisited.I don't think Parsa is trying to suggest that tarot divination was invented during 1970's. Tarot reading became more mainstream during the 1970's mainly because of US Games and hence that decade's importance. Also the Catholic Church objected to GAMBLING uses of Tarot in those early days and not to any divination activities. There is no documentation of divinatory uses of Tarot before the 18th century. If there are still claims being made that Tarot originated for the occult, there remains no evidence for itSmiloid 07:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have made a few changes that, perhaps, help remove the NPOV, world-view and copy editing concerns. The guy (lady?) trying to re-add the original research "characters not in tarot" list reverted it all, but I've restored it. I think adding the "gaming" section under "usage" goes a long way. Thoughts?

Thanks, yes, it's a start. Many articles in Wikipedia are broad. Subjects that are broad are broad. Tarot divination is less broad. Ptdecker, you said "This particular article deals with the occult usage of tarot", and that's what I object to. Tarot divination should be under Tarot (divination). The term "Tarot" in English can mean the game, the playing cards, or the whole milieu of card divination. As such, the article should also be general. I'm certainly not trying to eliminate divination or occult uses of cards from Wikipedia. I'm not some fanatic. I just want a balanced article. The only reason I mentioned "primary use" was due to the fact that Tarot cards have been used for playing games for over 500 years, while the divinatory uses go back a little over 200 years. I agree with Smiloid that there is no evidence I know for divinatory uses before Le Monde Primitif in 1781. Most of the references to terms like "pentacles", the "high priestess", the "heirophant" and the like are derived from the Waite-Rider deck. These terms are now used in many other U.S. Games decks and are also used in this article. The vast majority of historical tarot decks would call these "coins" (or denari, oro, etc), "The Popess", and "The Pope". The terms used in the article are therefore only representational of 20th/21st century decks. This gives a recentism and anglo-american bias. Except for a few inline internet references (mostly to trionfi.com), there are really no citations. There are no peer reviewed books or theses listed. There are no footnotes. There is no reference bibliography. It's all based on "common knowledge" of those editing the article. The weasel words need to be eliminated ... and there are many of them. I would edit the article as fairly as possible, but I'm concerned that it would all be altered as soon as I submitted it. Instead, I'd like a balanced consensus before any substantial edits. - Parsa 20:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To the Person Adding the List of "Characters not in Tarot"

Dear 165.21.83.240 or 165.21.83.246--If you try again to re-add your list of "characters not in tarot", please do so without reverting all the copyediting I am doing to the article to try and address the NPOV, world-view and copy editting concerns. Your list seems to represent original research with violates Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No original research rules and may have been why someone else removed it the first time you added it.--P Todd 17:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Citation and POV templates

I've added a number of templates to this article to help the editors Wikify the content they have submitted. These include Fact, Weasel, Weasel-inline, Or, and POV-statement.

Before additional editing is done, I recommend reading the articles: Neutral point of view, Avoid weasel words, No original research, and above all Citing sources. Remember also, that sources citied must be reliable sources.

Please take this in the spirit it was intended: to improve the article and make it more encyclopedic. - Parsa 23:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!--P Todd 00:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Don Leon, I'm not sure I understand the [citation needed] template on the following sentence: "The tarot is a set of cards displaying allegorical representations. Originally used as playing cards, they later came to be used for divination." Is the template for the first or second sentence? I suppose it does need a source ... it is a statement regarding historical background, but it's pretty general and not specific. I think if we add some general References to the article, this one will be taken care of as a given. - Parsa 02:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Graphitus says...

Erm, don't worry Sam. Honestly really don't. I took it all a bit more local and tried to get involved in my "home" town's pages to find out how wiki works. Then I decided my style is all a bit too partial and some of the names... anyway, I'm currently getting involved in the on-line tarot community again and refreshing my memory on some of it. I should be able to review how things have been tomorrow. You certainly didn't put me off contributing; I've had quite a lot to think about, like the prostitute murders in Ipswich and what they say about the way that Police forces can actually talk to each other when it's their own and their loved ones that are involved; but not when it's someone dangerous who actually cold do with being scrutinised.

I don't expect this to mean anything to you. And I'm certainly not referring to you in any part of it. I shall however go through the whole lot tomorrow, and your talk page, and give you the benenfit of my opinion after I have.

As far as Asperger's goes, actually, Tom the ex-special constable, who was an original suspect? I thikn he may be on the autistic specturm. He was sniffing around someone I knew when he was a special...which is the foundation of what I say about how forces can talk to each other when they want to but not when their occupatinal culture says it's uncoll to...oh, the lives that have been lost through macho posturing...

Stick with it. I shall get back to you tomorrow. thanks for the mail jogging my memory. I really shall get back to you on it tomorrow...

bollocks. I thought two twiddles signed my name ~

~~

Ah! it's four twiddles... Graphitus 02:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for somet' to do,try reading the French version. And the Italian. They should both be harmonious with the English, particulary the Italian; I gathered they broadly were. Then again I don't have a Polish dictionary... Graphitus 02:15, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3