Talk:Tarot

Links

I feel that there should be a link to the Tarotpedia, (www.tarotpedia.com) which will provide far more information than any of the other web sites listed Alchemicalegg 19:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the URL you provide doesn't seem to respond.--P Todd 00:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that... I corrected the error in the URL (an extra 'o').--P Todd 00:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Folks, the links I added earlier were not "spam links". They were links that added to the encyclopedic content of the article, and gave editors information and ideas for improving the article. Deleting them, and adding links to fortune telling sites and commercial vendors, is not going to make the article better.

The links I added were:

Andy's Playing Cards is one of the most complete and linked-to card sites on the 'Net. He has sections on cards from all over the world. The site includes maps, evolutionary relationship diagrams, glossaries, etc. There are about thirty pages on Tarot history with geographic distribution maps, tables, charts and many, many card images. Before deleting the link, you may want to look at all the pages that start on the Classic Tarots page.

The Hermitage Tarot history site has encyclopedic essays on the history of Tarot cards. It includes a card by card history of each trump card. It also covers Tarot classification, and a comparison of decks from each Tarot pattern family. Look at the Milanese pattern family for an example.

tarot•pedia is a Wiki tarot encyclopedia that operates much like Wikipedia. To my mind, it's much more balanced than most of the articles on Wikipedia since it gives equal weight to card games, divination, and other uses for Tarot cards.

Tarot History is a new site, but is off to a nice start. So far it covers three important historical decks: the Cary-Yale Visconti deck, the Visconti Sforza deck, and the Jacques Vieville deck.

None of these are commercial sites, sites offering tarot reading for a fee, or sites presenting cartomantic interpretations that are subjective to the author of the site. I could make a site saying a card has a certain cartomantic meaning, but who's to say my interpretation is right or wrong? We have to stick to encyclopedic content, not primary source material.

- Parsa 06:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC) All the above links are valid as to the content of this article. They should be included. I also have another proposed tarot history link Michael's Tarot Notebook http://www.geocities.com/cartedatrionfi/ And yes, Taropedia IS more balanced than many of the Wikipedia articles. It has been included here before but deleted due to some false perception that Wikipedia articles should not link to other Wiki's. I know of no such Wikipedia policy Smiloid 22:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

here i give a great link to website with 900 rated and reviewed Tarot & Oracle decks what you think about including it: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.245.207 (talk) 08:09, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

- New view on tarot. Statistical analisis of divinations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.107.82.204 (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel sorry that the link to the Tarot Card Meanings provided by the Paranormality website have been removed because the link was originally given permission to stay. The tarot meanings provided by this website are some of the most widely used on the web and love or hate the website that particular external link is a useful one and does add to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.40.135 (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see the meanings supplied are very brief and incomplete, do not indicate differences in opinion amongst authors on the subject, contain no explanation of symbolism, and are frequently ungrammatical. All that, and they're surrounded by garish advertising. I'm not sure we're doing anyone any favours sending them to such a simplistic and commercial site. If people want to find the meanings of the cards they would do far better googling for them, in which case they would get a better sense of the variety of opinions and interpretations around. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we're not going to endorse poor-quality information just because it happens to be be heavily advertised and hence popular. The problem with taking popularity as a measure of truth and validity is demonstrated by the number of people who voted for George Bush, and the number of people who watch Fox news. Fuzzypeg★ 22:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am new here. I attempted to add information about a new occult tarot yesterday, but before I learned how to create a page for the deck on Wikipedia, an admin told me not to add spammy external links to the tarot article. I am confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AidoWedo (talk • contribs) 05:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Structure

I feel that before we think about adding a lot of content, we should think about the section titles and sub-titles. Agree? This is my initial suggestion. I'm the first person to change if I hear a more logical suggestion, so these are just an initial set of titles to get us going.

• Tarot origins in Europe

- Tarot and early playing card history

- The origins of the Tarot (pack or deck? Are we going to be "anglo" or "american"? Hehe.)

- Early manuscript references to Tarot cards

- The spread and development of Tarot cards

• Characteristics of Tarot cards

- Suit signs (Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese)

- The trump cards and the Fool

- Tarot nomenclature (names of cards, terms, etc.)

- Special features found in divinatory Tarot cards

• Types of Tarot (decks/packs?)

- Florence and Venice -- early Tarot cards

- Milanese Tarot pattern -- Besançon, Marseille, Swiss (1JJ) --

- Bolognese Tarot pattern -- Rothschild, A. Hebreo, Tarocco Bolognese --

- Florence, Sicily and Genoa -- Rosenwald, Fortuna, Tarocco Siciliano

- Minchiate

- French and Belgian Tarot Patterns

- Later Austrian and French Tarock cards

- Divinatory decks (possibly with sections on those derived from Marseille and Waite, and those which are more unique varieties.)

• Tarot card games

Intro to games and lead in to specific game articles (there will likely be more in the future than there are now)

- Games with 78 cards

- Games with 54 or fewer cards

- The order of the trumps (historically they were arranged several ways and often included other types of cards. Trump order was especially important in game play. Perhaps a table could be included.

• Tarot cartomancy (or divination, or Fortune telling. Divination has a more religious connotation.)

Intro to tarot cartomancy and lead in to main article on that subject.

- Origins in France

- Occult Tarot terminology (Major arcana, minor arcana, card name substitutes (eg Heirophant), etc.)

(Don't know how much we want to put in this main article.)

• Tarot iconography

- European archetypes in the Tarot trump cards

- Tarot symbolism and the Church

- Some occult interpretations (mostly from early authors in this article)

• Tarot in literature
• Tarot in popular culture
• See also
• (Further reading)
• Notes
• References
• External links

If we can work with each other to turn this article into a featured article or even a good one, it will be a true accomplishment for Wikipedia.

--> Good article criteria

--> Featured article criteria

- Parsa 04:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This structure isn't bad. I would edit it a bit for there is no need to repeat the word "Tarot" since that is explicit in the article. Perhaps the below?--P Todd 03:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• European Origins

- Early playing card history

- Tarot origins

- Early manuscript references

- Spread and development

• Characteristics

- Suit signs (Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese)

- The trump cards and the Fool

- Nomenclature (names of cards, terms, etc.)

- Special features of divinatory cards

• Deck types

- Florence and Venice -- early Tarot cards

- Milanese Tarot pattern -- Besançon, Marseille, Swiss (1JJ) --

- Bolognese Tarot pattern -- Rothschild, A. Hebreo, Tarocco Bolognese --

- Florence, Sicily and Genoa -- Rosenwald, Fortuna, Tarocco Siciliano

- Minchiate

- French and Belgian Tarot Patterns

- Later Austrian and French Tarock cards

- Divinatory decks (possibly with sections on those derived from Marseille and Waite, and those which are more unique varieties.)

• Card games

Intro to games and lead in to specific game articles (there will likely be more in the future than there are now)

- Games with 78 cards

- Games with 54 or fewer cards

- The order of the trumps (historically they were arranged several ways and often included other types of cards. Trump order was especially important in game play. Perhaps a table could be included.

• Cartomancy (or divination, or Fortune telling. Divination has a more religious connotation.)

Intro to tarot cartomancy and lead in to main article on that subject.

- Origins in France

- Occult Tarot terminology (Major arcana, minor arcana, card name substitutes (eg Heirophant), etc.)

(Don't know how much we want to put in this main article.)

• Iconography

- European archetypes in the Tarot trump cards

- Tarot symbolism and the Church

- Some occult interpretations (mostly from early authors in this article)

• Literature references
• Popular culture
• See also
• (Further reading)
• Notes
• References
• External links

images

The Rider Waite images in this article, as well as similar ones, are colorized versions to avoid the US Games copyrights. It's my understanding that the black and white versions are in the public domain. Is it Wikipedia material to have these artificially doctored illustrations in the article? Smiloid 08:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. Are you saying they shouldn't be there? I think they add greatly to the article. --Surturz 00:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am very fond of the artistry of Pamela Coleman Smiith's designs, but they are copyrighted. Frankly, I think the article would be improved with more variety. I have a lot of historical (reproduction) decks, and when I get the chance I will scan some and post them here for people to look at and vote on. - Parsa 18:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the more variety in the images, the better --Surturz 00:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not the Rider Waite deck to which I object. It is the inclusion of colorized images which bothers me. Is this not a kind of "original research?" The History Channel, in the US, was criticized for including colorized footage of the First World War. I would object to any doctored versions of actual tarot decksSmiloid 09:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You do have a point, but replacing the colourised images with black and white versions would diminish the article IMHO. Perhaps US Games could be approached to give permission to use one or two of the proper coloured images? "The Fool", "Four of Swords" and some other images are available from their website already... or are we likely to open a can of worms if we ask for permission? --Surturz 13:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I see two possible solutions here. We can still use these colorized images, but add some tag indicating up front that these are computer colorized replications. The other solution is to simply upload the US Games versions of these cards as, according to some Wikipedians, the US Games copyright is not actually valid in the US. See here for discussion on this copyright issue Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 February 11/ImagesSmiloid 01:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Btw, I still have my doubts, though, that the RWS deck with the (c) 1971 notice is PD in the States.Smiloid 01:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Smiloid, there's an excellent discussion of the copyright issues at http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/faq.htm -- but the upshot of the long argument is that there are colorized versions from 1910 that, while hard to find, have been found and scanned. ( http://home.comcast.net/~vilex/ ) This original 1909 artwork is by definition in the public domain (because of the date of publication.) US Games claim to the original 1909/1910 artwork is invalid in the USA. --SmartyPants09 (talk) 20:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, my suggestion would be to use scans of the original 1909 deck. The colors are a little faded now, but they are authentic first-publication scans. ( Available here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/xr/index.htm ). By definition *anything* created before 1922 is in the public domain. --SmartyPants09 (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Tarot images, "more variety"

I've included the VS tarot to make sure we have a diversity of images. The article for that particular deck is literally begging for more links. I also think that those French suited decks commonly used for games should also appear here as such cards were alsoincluded in Kaplan's Encyclopedia's of TarotSmiloid 23:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done, great additions. --Surturz 06:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Appears this is important new information from extant but obscure old sources.

Could somebody more knowledgeable than me take a look at http://trionfi.com/0/mi/00/ and define how much of the information therein is suitable for inclusion in our article? If I read it correctly, this is groundbreaking new understanding about the evolution of the cards, and the original intent about their symbolic structure and gameplay. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 18:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That site seems to be everywhere here. There is a lot of speculation, some of which appears to be unsubstantiatedSmiloid 03:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuredly a great deal of the conclusions are speculation, but the underlying source material is not speculation surely? How ever one might interpret the signifigance of the text, the words themselves are clearly information that is not speculation, but new information not covered otherwise. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 02:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you speaking of the "Meister Ingold revolution?"Smiloid 05:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I did a closer reading of the text in question, and it seems to be new source material to the writers of that web-page, not new source material to the field of historical cartomancy researchers in general. So not scientifically groundbreaking after all. Nevertheless perhaps there might be some subtle connections to earlier trumping gameplay and or more primitive decks that might be lifted (at least as a footnote) into the current article. Not sure, don't have the depth of research backround to make such a determination. If the connection is purely speculative, naturally mentioning it in the article on tarot, is delicate, to be sure. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 20:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

As one of the authors of the Trionfi.com page I wouldn't like to see the text of the Meister Ingold revolution included. The text is relevant for the "Imperatori cards phase" (ca. 1420 - 1455), which is a development prior to the Tarot card development (since ca. 1440) - as far we can say that on the base of few documents only. The context between Imperatori cards (their existence is given by a single line of text for the year 1423, then later 1443 - 1455 mentioned a few times), Karnöffel game (first mentioned 1426, then proceeded with some tradition), Michelino deck (oldest Tarot cards estimated to 1424/25) and the short Ingold text (1432; only a few sentences are relevant in the question) is from our side still in the research state and the argumentative representation is still in preparation. Privately spoken: I personally think, that there is a context between all 4 developments, but it is a complex theme - and from our side not ready. I think for the moment, that the Wikipedia article is better without that complicating debate.

Some suggestions:

The word Taraux and Tarocchi appeared in the year 1505 in France and in Ferrara for the first time - see short note and here, but only provisionally ... the French Tarot of Marseille started to our knowledge in mid of 17th century, ca. 150 years later (the current article is confusing in this matter).

From the point of history - it would be naturally to present the second half of 15th centure better. The appearance of the word "Trionfi" in documents is documented by us - not totally complete - at http://trionfi.com/0/e/00/, the second part would be a list of all extant cards of 15th/early 16th centuries (best with links to resources in the web) ... this is all, which forms our historical understanding of the process.

Generally the current line of Tarot history research and theory is formed by two opposing viewing points - one (orthodox) interpretation suggests the hypothesis, that there was an original and hidden-to-our-eyes Tarot ca. 1420 - 1440, at least ready ca. 1450 (that what we know as Tarot with 22 special cards and 56 small arcana), and this made a variety of other productions with differences to the original possible, and the alternative viewing point only accepts "real data" and finishes, that evidence for the 22-special-cards-versions appears rather late in 15th century. The crucial point in the debate is the socalled Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-Tarocchi, which is dated ca. 1452 and from the orthodox side is interpreted as evidence for a complete 22-special-cards-version, but from the "real-data"-fraction (that is more or less Trionfi.com) is argumented, that this deck knew 2 different painters and that 6 of the special cards were produced later. As in 1457 two Trionfi card decks are mentioned, which had only 70 cards, it is from this alternative side argumented, that the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-Tarocchi ALSO was originally a deck with 70 cards only (organised in a 5x14-structure - which is a possible solution for all cards made by the first painter of the Pierpont-Morgan-Bergamo-Tarocchi, who left 13 trumps, 1 Fool and 54 of 56 small cards - only 2 cards are lost, one them in the 20th century). The relevant remaining special cards are 0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10 .. 12, 13 ... 20, whereby the irregulare looking jump from 10 to 12 could be interpreted as a result of a number-consideration (theoretically it was originally counted from 1,2,3 ... till 14, but the result was an unpleasant endresult "105", which was altered by moving the Fool from 11 to 0 and the card 14, Judgment, to 20, so getting the pleasant endresult "100"). Well, and there are much further more complicated arguments ....

Following the argumentation of the "real-data-fraction", then the time of the "origin of the standard Tarot" might move from earlier accepted "1420-1440" or "ca. 1450" to a time in the 60's or 70's of 15th century, which is in historical evaluation a dramatical change..

(autorbis)87.78.74.82 03:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Please clean up your references; those anonymous external links especially. Give them the correct title, author etc. Shinobu 14:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

More about the words used.

There is some discussion in the article about the origins (disputed as they are) of the word "Tarot" itself. What about the usages "trump" and "arcana" for the different portions of the deck? Where do these surface, and based on what? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 00:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Captions

Many of the captions state that The quality of colors may differ slightly from the US Games versions. Unless the colors depicted are used uniformly in the rest of the world, why have this rather US-centric statement? It seems that it would be better to simply state that the coloring varies by edition/publication/whatever the correct term is. --Starwed 16:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

From examining the actual image pages, my understanding is that:

• The original images, now in the public domain, are available in black and white
• US Games is a company which holds the copyright to a particular colored derivation
• The cards pictured in the article are an independently colored version of the original.

So the whole thing makes more sense to me personally now, but I'm not sure how to clarify it within the page itself. :) --Starwed 13:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references

This section is getting jammed up with trivia. It seems to be a trivia magnet! Can I suggest we remove it or alternatively split if off elsewhere. References to the tarot are so numerous that I don't see this providing much use. Any views before I become bold and delete it? Gillyweed 00:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC) Yes, I've noticed the same thing! We've had this problem before. I will do the deed for you, Smiloid 18:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tarot readers

This whole series of articles on Tarot readings seems to be full of cruft. Can someone please go through and fix them all? I know very little about the mysticism that gullible people pour into Tarot cards, but it needs to be cleaned up, cited using reliable sources, and a lot of junk needs to be removed. Titanium Dragon 23:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC) Just to clarify this article here concerns the cards themselves. The article tarot reading deals with the topic of cartomantic uses. You are probably correct that there is some cruft with the inclusion of some of these decks. This article needs to be organized into a taxonomy of card designs. Smiloid 01:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Suit of Swords

I have suggested that The Suit of Swords be merged into this article, because it lacks enough content to work as a stand-alone. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This would not be the only tarot stub. There are even articles on individual tarot cards most of which are stubsSmiloid (talk) 07:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

The capitalization of "Tarot" is all over the place in this article. While I often see it capitalized, I'm unsure of the reasons why it would or wouldn't be, so it might be correct to do so in some instances but not in others. As near as I can tell, however, it's entirely random in this article. If someone knows better than I do, it might be something to clean up. --Rob (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC) You are correct. It should NOT be capitalized. Feel free to de-cap them,LOLSmiloid (talk) 06:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding Links

I am new here and not sure where to add a link that would be practical as I teach tarot classes and have for over twenty years. I have several methods and resources I'd like to post as an external link and have no idea where to do so and what is the proper way to do so. Any help would be terrific.JustMeTT200808 21:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)yogini2006

Accuracy?

Much of the information in this article, such as almost the entire "Origins" section, is not entirely accurate. The proposed origin with the Mameluk Egyptians has been forwarded by scholars, but so have many other theories, and none has so far been backed up with sufficient evidence to claim even likelihood for that scenario being true. So at the very least, this article needs to be carefully scrutinized, and adapted so that it is clear that many of the stated 'facts' are, in fact, uncertain and subject of ongoing research.

82.176.216.87 (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Named Cards

In my edit of today I have changed the expression 'trump cards' to 'named cards'. The reason for this is that a trump card is only relevant to trick taking games where cards of one suit rank above all non trump cards, and automatically prevail over them, losing only to a higher trump if one is played to the same trick. Calling these cards 'Major Arcana' would only cover the esoteric uses and not the game uses. As these cards all have names on them it seems to me that 'named cards' is a reasonable compromise. Also I have proposed merging Tarot Reading with this article. Please see Talk:Tarot reading. Morgan Leigh | Talk 10:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not all tarot decks have "named cards" and esoteric writers have called "trumps" as well as "major arcana" Google "tarot" and "trumps" and you will see some examplesSmiloid (talk) 15:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I take your point. I wasn't really happy with 'named' but couldn't think of a way to put it that covers both uses. I know that Waite uses 'trumps major' but this appellation is not in common use these days. Most mere Anglophiles are innocent of the rules of the card games played with tarot cards and also sadly lacking in an awareness of the history of the cards, which situation has resulted in a lack of understanding as to why 'trumps' might be an appropriate moniker for the cards overwhelmingly known to us as 'The Major Arcana'. This lack of eloquence on my part is however not a valid reason to revert all the other changes I made yesterday. Consequently I have today incorporated your subsequent edits into the text of my last edit, having reverted 'named cards' to 'trumps'. I still think the introduction paragraph is clumsy and would suggest that we work on this. Can I please remind you that it is wikipedia policy to make one edit instead of a number of smaller edits in a row, which is your general practice. It would make things easier to manage if you could abide by this policy please.

I have also rearranged the images so that they are near text relevant to them and replaced a RW image with a Thoth one to provide greater diversity of card images.

I understand that you are interested in seeing that the games played with Tarot cards are given adequate coverage in this article. I have no problem with this at all. However I think you should bear in mind that this is an English wikipedia page and as such it reflects the prevalences of the English speaking world, where, as you rightly say, the games played with Tarot cards are practically unknown. Please bear this in mind when editing this article.

Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support merging both "Tarot reading" and "Tarot card games" with "Tarot" Having both merged would resolve bias issues.Smiloid (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

It has been proposed to merge the Tarot Reading page and the Tarot card games page into the Tarot article. See the discussions at Talk:Tarot reading and Talk:Occult tarot. So far there is a majority in favour of the Tarot Reading merge but only one opinion on the Tarot games merge. See smiloids comment above. (Smiloid:I didn't want to move your vote to this section without asking you but it might be clearer if you do.)

Merge both - The English expression 'Tarot Reading' means to use Tarot cards for divinatory purposes. Ergo it does not include such things as using tarot cards as a meditative tool, for pathworking, or use as a mnemonic device. This means that Tarot reading is just one of many uses to which the Tarot cards are put. As such it should be the subject of a section in the Tarot article. If this section was to become large enough to warrant its own article then such a page should be created. This is not presently the case. Neither is it the case that the Tarot article is too long to support the addition of the material that is worth keeping which is currently on the Tarot Reading page.

I think it is important that the Tarot article include information about all the uses of Tarot cards. However, being as this is the English wikipedia, and being as in the Anglophone world the playing of games with Tarot cards is almost completely unknown, it would be appropriate for the esoteric uses of Tarot cards to be a greater part of the article than the games. However there does need to be more information in the Tarot article than presently exists regarding the games played with Tarot cards. Simply having a link to the pages specific to the games is not sufficient. A summary of the games would benefit the Tarot page. Some of the information on the Tarot card games page is a duplication of that on the Tarot page. Indeed it seems strange to mention Antoine Court de Gebelin on the Tarot card games page at all. For this reason I support the merge of Tarot Games into Tarot. I suggest that the Tarot card games page should follow the fine example of the French Tarot page, which explains the game and its rules and gameplay rather than the history of the cards themselves, which information seems to belong on the Tarot page. Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Smiloid - please refrain from editing the article until a consensus has been arrived at. One day is not long enough for a merge vote and your edit has resulted in a duplication of images. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge both Tarot reading and Tarot card games into Tarot Smiloid (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge both. Sorry for jumping in with some of the editing, I hadn't seen this proposal yet... I'll give it a break for a while. Fuzzypeg★ 09:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No votes have been recorded for a few days now so I reckon we should go ahead and do the merge of these three articles into one. I suggest that Smiloid handle the tarot games stuff and Fuzzypeg the Tarot reading stuff. I'll do the occult tarot stuff. If that suits everybody please remember to handle the deletion of the page once you have moved all the material we will be keeping. I'm glad we have been able to work together and arrive at a consensus :) I am confident we will have an improved article once we have done this. The question is, are we ready to keep working together and really try to lift the quality of the article to 'good', or maybe even 'featured'?.. I'm for it if you guys are. Morgan Leigh | Talk 11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've done work on the re-directs so they point to the more relevant parts of the article. There are some sections here that need work. Two important genres of tarot deck need to be included, one is the so-called "Egyptian tarot" which is the first type of divinatory tarot and the other is the French suited tarot. These two types of deck are really the first "modern" tarots. Also the two distinguishing features of the Rider Waite deck should be mentioned; the swapping of ranks of the Strengh and Justice cards and the use of illustrated pips, an innovation inspired by the Sola Busca Tarocchi.Smiloid (talk) 05:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued insistence on linking through Occult tarot redirect

Smiloid, you still seem to be insisting on linking a whole heap of articles to Occult tarot, which is a redirect page, rather than directly to tarot. Will you please come out and explain why you feel this is so imperative? I'm getting sick of you reverting my changes without explanation.

I disagree with going through this redirect for a couple of reasons. First of all, it seems to be motivated by your unilateral decision that only game-playing tarot can be called "tarot", and anything else must without exception be referred to as 'occult tarot' or 'divinatory tarot'; I've argued repeatedly that the qualifiers 'occult' and 'divinatory' are only needed if context is insufficient to imply these, but rather than entering into discussion with me you're continuing to revert my edits without explanation.

Secondly, it's against WP guidelines. WP:CONTEXT#Subsections clearly tells us to avoid linking to subsections because the reader will arrive mid-article without context. This lack of context is particularly marked in the example of your links to Tarot#Occult uses, since that subsection is only two sentences long! There's plenty of other information relating to occult tarot in the rest of the article, and this segregation you seem to be trying to enforce just seems like a big "up yours". It's very hard to assume good faith when you're refusing to enter into rational discussion and just reverting.

I'll give you a day or so to reply before I go and fix up the mess you've been making. Can you tell, I'm a bit annoyed? Fuzzypeg★ 04:55, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this seems unnecessary. I think that all the redirects should redirect to the top of the article, and that other articles should by preference simply link to Tarot and not some variant. Wednesday Next (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wednesday Next appears to be consistent. If everything "tarot" links to the top that would be good. Because we have re-directs "tarock" and "tarocchi" these names should be incorporated into the article. There are some English and German speakers who would use "tarock" only for game tarot and "tarot" for occult tarot but this is not universal usage because I have seen a few examples of "tarock" used in an esoteric context. Everything, occult tarot, tarot card games, tarock and kitchen sink tarot, then should all re-direct to tarot. However, regardless of what we do with re-direct pages, in articles on tarot occultism as well as on tarot gaming, it should be specified the type of tarot practiced. When the cards are used in occult or divination practice it should be specified as occult tarot or divinatory tarot. A statement such as "He taught the basics of tarot" when he's practicing occultism would not be adequate as it conveys the meaning that occult practices are the only form of tarot and this is something to be avoided. I've done the same on the gaming side of the topic. I have also specified and linked to the article on runic divination on articles related to runes.Smiloid (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I still maintain that's patently ridiculous. Are we going to explicitly say "recreational tarot" or "game-playing tarot" whenever tarot is mentioned, even if it's clear from the context? That's just awkward and unnecessary. I went through all the articles that you had linked to Occult tarot and made sure that the occult context was made clear in every case, but that we weren't linking through a redirect. You went back and reverted all my changes, including some other substantive changes that I don't think you even bothered to look at. You've repeatedly wasted both my time and yours, and still haven't given me any explanation or precedent for this artificial naming convention you're insisting upon.

You know, some people are male, and some are female. They're different! I (male) propose that whenever Wikipedia mentions a person, we should specify whether they are male or female, regardless of whether it's made clear by the context. Such as, "he was the male Prime Minister of Great Britain", or "male and female nurses often work in hospitals, caring for male and female patients". I think it'll be much clearer. Fuzzypeg★ 05:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be obsessed with that one re-direct page. The term "occult tarot" is not my invention, I am aware of its use by at least two authors of books as well as the internet. I personally don't care for the term but this is a term used by both Dummett and Kalin. I made changes to all the re-direct pages so the point to "tarot". I may have missed "occult tarot" but it now directs to "tarot"Smiloid (talk) 07:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Several authors have also used the term "male Prime Minister", but the fact that someone has strung those words together doesn't mean that we have to whenever talking about a male prime minister. And don't tell me I was obsessed with that redirect! You created it, and tried to deface a score of different articles with it in a hare-brained attempt to rebrand applications of tarot you don't approve of. Not my obsession, and if you "don't care for the term", why have you fought me so hard to include it in so many articles?

And please state for the record, are you or aren't you intending to continue this nonsense of making sure every mention of tarot in Wikipedia is explicitly worded "recreational tarot", "occult tarot" or "divinatory tarot"? Please say 'no', so I can go and fix the mess you've been making in all those articles, rather than hanging out here flapping my mouth.

I'm normally a very courteous editor; I'm afraid your unilateral approach and evasion of any rational discussion has got me rather annoyed. It's a real pain in the arse trying to argue with someone who won't clearly state what their position is or why. Fuzzypeg★ 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"recreational tarot?" would not be adequate, as some people might consider the reading of tarot cards to also be recreational. Simply call the games "tarot card games" or the "tarot card game" It is not that complicated. To use a previously mentioned example, what constitutes the so-called "basics of tarot?" You have to remember Wikipedia is not NewAgepedia. Wikipedia should not use language which implies that occultism is the only use of the cards or that occultism is the so-called "basics of tarot" There are articles on tarot including games and decks which are independent of occultism. Again the term "occult tarot" is not my creation. I've seen the term employed by a number of authors.Smiloid (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No-one's trying to disguise tarot as a new age phenomenon, and you should remember that I actually went through a whole load of articles relating to occult and divinatory uses of tarot and ensured that the context was clear. We're just as keen as you on ensuring that our readers understand that occultism and divination are not the only (or even the original) uses of tarot. There's no conspiracy here.

That said, I've had a look through a whole load of books that discuss tarot in an occult context, and none of them use the term 'occult tarot' except when it is necessary to differentiate from other uses of tarot. On the contrary, there is a strong precedent for using the terms 'tarock' or 'French tarot' to refer to the game, to distinguish it from tarot in general, presumably because most English speakers associate the word with fortune-telling. If we are to follow established naming conventions then divinatory or occult uses of tarot should be called 'tarot' (with qualifiers added where needed to avoid confusion), and game-playing varieties should be called either 'tarock' or 'tarot' (and if we use the term 'tarock' then it makes the difference quite clear). Fuzzypeg★ 05:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No! "Tarock" is sometimes used as divinatory tarot, just as "tarot" is sometimes used for gaming. I can show you some examples of such usage. This German novel "Madame Tarock" for example is one example and I've seen others. Here's my point. It should be specified that occult or divinatory tarot is related to Alchemy, for example, and not just "tarot". When something is related only to the esoteric practice, it should be indicated as such. Those symbols of classical elements are not usually printed on the decks. My purpose is to make note that certain concepts may only apply to occult tarot. Wikipedia is not Occultopedia. What you call "established naming conventions" were "established" by the tarot occultists and are not NPOV and are only useful to those only interested in the esoteric interpretations of the cards. Such conventions are damaging as they imply that this use the only or the intended use of the cards. They are damaging because they conceal information rather than reveal it. The notion that tarot is only associated with fortune telling is false one that Wikipedia should not perpetuate and it appears to something you seek to preserve with your edits. My purpose is to make specifics known and not to conceal them. We need to be more rigorous and specific in our language. The vagueness and obscurantism of a lot of new age and occult writing is not conducive to what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. We are to make information known and not conceal it. Having said that, I will get to the issue at hand, the topic of this thread and state that I have stopped linking through re-directs so that issue is resolved.Smiloid (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I note that Smiloid has recreated the Occult Tarot redirect even though it was deleted by an admin.

I must concur with Fuzzypeg that it is just plain silly to keep having to say 'occult tarot' when the context quite clearly indicates what is meant. You seem to not have noticed Smiloid that your naming convention is not NPOV either. Because you are clearly immersed in the world of Tarot game playing you are not understanding that to the vast majority of the English speaking world Tarot is an esoteric device and its game playing uses are an historical and geographically localized oddity. You have a bias and you don't seem to be able to admit it - "The vagueness and obscurantism of a lot of new age and occult writing is not conducive to what Wikipedia is supposed to be about". I personally find this offensive. Fuzzypeg and I have both made many good faith edits which you have simply reverted because they contain one thing you disagree with. We do not for example insist that you say "game playing tarot" every single time you mention tarot in articles about card games. I would like to reiterate Fuzzypeg's point that in books dealing with Tarot the default usage 'Tarot' is used for the esoteric uses and when the games are mentioned then 'tarock' or 'French tarot' is used. I am sorry that it is the case that the games played with Tarot cards are not more well known. This is not a good reason to expect the world to adapt to the distinction you wish to make. I have requested mediation in this issue.Morgan Leigh | Talk 14:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been searching for guidelines that cover our particular predicament, and I posted a question at Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict#Naming conflict not covered by this guideline, where I received a helpful response. You may be interested to read it. The various guidelines I've read through have also reminded me that my intemperate responses are probably not working in anyone's favour, and I should just stick to the facts and keep my dealings civil and businesslike. My frustrations got the better of me, I'm sorry to say, and I'll try to keep them better in check in future.

Smiloid, I understand your edits are made in good faith, and founded on the firm belief that any connection between tarot and occultism is spurious, a relatively modern innovation. That's quite fair, but not sufficient reason to insist on unprecedented requirements regarding terminology. Note, I am not saying that the phrase 'occult tarot' is unprecedented, just that there is no precedent for requiring that that exact phrase be always used, rather than the more simple wording 'tarot'. I believe that for you to insist on such a requirement, the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate a precedent, and further to demonstrate that it carries more weight than the widespread precedent for the word 'tarot' appearing on its own, without a qualifier tacked on.

Regarding your charge that I am seeking to "perpetuate" the "notion that is only associated with tarot fortune-telling", I reiterate my previous statement:

"No-one's trying to disguise tarot as a new age phenomenon, and you should remember that I actually went through a whole load of articles relating to occult and divinatory uses of tarot and ensured that the context was clear. We're just as keen as you on ensuring that our readers understand that occultism and divination are not the only (or even the original) uses of tarot. There's no conspiracy here."

Our purpose here is to make Wikipedia reliable, informative and well-written, not to create an 'Occultipedia' or 'Newage-pedia', or promote any personal agenda. Fuzzypeg★ 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In keeping with the purpose of Wikipedia, we should be precise in our language and indicate an occult interpreation of the cards for what it is. I do not understand your war against specifics. Alchemy is exclusive to occult tarot and our articles should indicate that.Smiloid (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that I know what you mean when you say "Alchemy is exclusive to occult Tarot". Can you please elucidate? Morgan Leigh | Talk 02:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The symbols representing the classical elements, with the exception of a few modern decks, are not explicitly depicted. It is an interpretation of the the suit signs which used in occultism. This part, that particular interpretation of the suit signs, is exclusive to occult tarot. One edit you made appeared to say that Fire or Air are suits of the tarot, which is not usually the case. Now, here's an interesting little known irony. The trumps of certain tarot decks do explicitly depict these elements. The variant deck called Minchiate of which I'm sure you are aware depicts them on the trumps. Trumps 10 and 11 of the deck used to play the French tarot game also depict scenes representing classical elements.Smiloid (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You say "in keeping with the purpose of Wikipedia". Please indicate which Wikipedia guideline or policy you are referring to. In my experience Wikipedia encourages a sufficient level of clarity but discourages extraneous verbiage; see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Adequate_framing as an example.

I believe our debate comes down to whether or not it is necessary to prefix the word "occult" when tarot is mentioned in a context that is clearly occult (and so on with "game-playing" and "divinatory" tarot). Do you agree with this assessment? Fuzzypeg★ 04:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would disagree that it's extraneous. "Occult tarot" is no more inelegant than "tarot games". The term simply reflects that it's a particular application of tarot. What about pop culture articles such as on the movie The Matrix? There is no esoteric "frame" within that article.Smiloid (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I should make reference to a recent book "The Esoteric Scene, Cultic Milieu, and Occult Tarot." by Danny L. Jorgensen. Do you consider his use of the term extraneous. It is this usage which influenced my edits as well as seeing how the term "tarot reading" is used in recent new articles. To me simply using the term "tarot" by itself without qualifying is a kind of new age or occult cruft. It appears to be an overly partisan usageSmiloid (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, but could you answer my question, please? Namely, do you agree that our debate is about whether or not it is necessary to prefix the word "occult" in situations where occultism is clearly the context? Isn't that what we're arguing about, whether context can be sufficient, or whether the qualifier 'occult' is required regardless of context? Fuzzypeg★ 21:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is required because it conveys information. My objection to simply using the term "tarot" without qualification is that it hides information from the reader even when the context of the article is clear. It is also biased in a sentence such as "He taught the basics of tarot" This sentence is very POV. What constitutes the basics of tarot? If you don't like the term "occult tarot" an improvement might be "He taught what he believed to be the basics of tarot?" I am on the same page with you though on proper linking so that is no longer an issue.Smiloid (talk) 23:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You're still answering a different question to the one I asked, but I believe I can take your answer to be "yes": you do agree that that is what our debate is about. I'm trying to clarify this so we can keep the argument to a single issue.

So, you give the phrase "He taught the basics of tarot" as an example of a phrase that doesn't sufficiently indicate that 'occult' tarot is intended. I can't actually find this phrase in wikipedia or using a google search, so I can't actually evaluate its context, but I'm sure that there's not just one way to phrase it more clearly. You are championing constructions like "he taught the basics of occult tarot"; however I can imagine the equally valid "He taught various occult subjects, including tarot, [etc.]". There's never just one way to phrase things, and we should use whatever phrasing is simplest, most clear and most consistent with existing language conventions to ensure that the context is plain. Fuzzypeg★ 22:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"Modern" deck designs?

What is a "modern" deck? Is a Marseille tarot a "modern" deck? I don't think so! Why are only esoteric/divination decks modern? Why not the modern tarot gaming deck?Smiloid (talk) 06:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. Modern is a pretty subjective term. In terms of history, anything could be called modern if it originates after about 1450. The word is often only useful as a comparison (e.g. "more modern than such-and-such"). I see no reason why only esoteric decks should be called "modern". Fuzzypeg★ 05:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

1450? LOL! the earliest known cards date from that period! Well, I've changed it to read variety of deck designs because it seems to be a better description.Smiloid (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Smiloid, if you'd kindly read what Fuzzypeg wrote, you will see that he referred to *history in general*, i.e. anything from what we call the "modern era" (divided into early modern, modern and contemporary by most historians), which starts roughly at the same time as the Italian Renaissance.62.238.248.137 (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did read it. That's why I thought it was funny. It starts roughly at the time the earliest known tarot decks appeared which would make ALL tarot decks modern. That's what I found amusing about it.Smiloid (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Avenue of DR

I noticed this dispute on the Medcab page and was curious as to whether or not everyone would agree to a Realtime chat (IRC or some other medium) to resolve this? Geoff Plourde (talk) 06:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's very hard for me to know when I'll be available to chat. I'm just snatching a bit of time from work at the moment! Hopefully the mediation is already wrapping up though... Fuzzypeg★ 21:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyrighted image

Wasn't there a discussion above under "images" about copyrighted US Games cards? I note that a large Rider Waite card is once again on the page. - Parsa (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who kicked up a stink about the 1971 images in the first place, and it was me who eventually replaced all the images with the older 1909 versions which are now out of copyright. You'll notice that the images now don't have little copyright notices in the corners! That chariot image you're wondering about is indeed in the public domain, and if you want more info about it, have a look at the description and source info in the image's page. Fuzzypeg★ 05:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

---

(add new sections above)

TALK PAGES FOR TAROT AT WIKIPEDIA

Number	Name	Talk Page
Trumps	Major Arcana	Talk:Major Arcana
Numbers/Courts	Minor Arcana	Talk:Minor Arcana
0	The Fool	Talk:Fool
1:I	The Magician	Talk:Magician
2:II	The High Priestess	Talk:Priestess
3:III	The Empress	Talk:Empress
4:IV	The Emperor	Talk:Emperor
5:V	The Hierophant	Talk:Hierophant
6:VI	The Lovers	Talk:Lovers
7:VII	The Chariot	Talk:Chariot
8:VIII	Strength	Talk:Strength
9:IX	The Hermit	Talk:Hermit
10:X	The Wheel of Fortune	Talk:Wheel
11:XI	Justice	Talk:Justice
12:XII	The Hanged Man	Talk:Hanged Man
13:XIII	Death	Talk:Death
14:XIV	Temperance	Talk:Temperance
15:XV	The Devil	Talk:Devil
16:XVI	The Tower	Talk:Tower
17:XVII	The Star	Talk:Star
18:XVIII	The Moon	Talk:Moon
19:XIX	The Sun	Talk:Sun
20:XX	Judgment	Talk:Judgment
21:XXI	The World	Talk:World

Major Arcana

Is there a source for these one-line summations of the Major Arcana? The reason why I ask is because people unfamiliar with the Tarot (or should I say "occult Tarot") may surmise from this list that the meanings of these cards are 1. Universally agreed upon. 2. Easily reduced to a single sentence which they are not. I propose a link to the wikipedia article on the Major Arcana instead of this list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily20 (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC) (the list in the article, ofcourse, not the one above)Lily20 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree here. If there is a source it would perhaps be the sacred texts website. Most if not all the early English language esoteric writing on tarot cards is available there. I see no purpose in a list which duplicates the intended content of all the articles we have on individual cards. Delete the list if you likeSmiloid (talk) 08:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Suits & Elements

Nowhere in the article does it state that the four suits (pentacles, wands, cups and swords) are the basis for the modern-day suits of hearts, clubs, spades and diamonds. ((Though I'm not sure which tarot suit matches to which modern suit))

The article appears to accept that the occult interpretation of tarot started in the 1700s. As the "modern-day" card suits referred to were invented before that, it's absurd to attribute the relatively recent occult names to the suits from which these were derived. The original names (still used where Tarot card games are played) are normally translated as: coins(=diamonds), batons(=clubs), cups (=hearts), swords(=spades). The "modern-day" suits are really "dominant" rather than "modern-day" - other systems can still be seen in use for at least some games in various European countries, and it's by no means certain that the dominant system is the newest of all.

PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 16:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And I think that it should be mentioned that many people associate Wands with Air and Sword with Fire. The Rider-Waite deck has it as Swords=Air, but other decks have Swords= Fire. It depends on what deck you are using. I think it is worth mentioning that some people believe that Swords are the Air element and others think Swords are the Fire element.

tarock cards

It seems worth mentioning somewhere that there are some card games called "Tarock" in German-speaking countries, which are played with a non-Tarot pack. There are packs produced for these games which also included "Tarock" in their names but just have the usual four suits (possibly in a local pattern). PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a deck called "Schafkopf Tarock" which is a 36 card deck used to play games like Sheepshead. Are these cards you're talking about?

http://www.melankolia.net/gameblog/archives/2008/06/playingcard_review_5_tarock_an.html

Smiloid (talk) 08:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a perfectly good example, though in this case the name of the game soesn't include "Tarock". PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Your point is excellent. Currently it's only mentioned very inconspicuously at Tarot, tarock, and tarocchi games#Typical rules of play. Of course what happened is that when Tarot cards went out of fashion, people adapted some Tarot games to standard packs. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of "Tarot"

This section changed to reflect what must be considerable scepticism about any origin further back than "taroc/tarocchi, origin unknown" which is pretty much what the OED says. For any genuine credibility the "turuq = 4 (path)ways" interpretation needs tracing back to a source which is not just copying Tarot-related stuff from somewhere else. Google searching suggests that the main Arabic meaning of "Turuq" is "brotherhood" or something like it. The phrasing implied that the same people recognised the "tarach" possibility when this is from a completely different source which says nothing about Turuq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turuq indicates that turuq means "ways", plural, but NOT "four ways". PeterBiddlecombe (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Consistency accross pages concerning the deck

Because of the structure of something like Tarot, there are inevitably going to be groups of pages which serve similar functions with relation to parts of the deck but which differ in certain aspects. For example, the cards in the Major Arcana share certain similarities, yet each is distinct. Likewise we have similar yet distinct suits and ranks in the Minor Arcana.

It is in the best interests of Wikipedia if the pages which are similar in this fashion are similar in their structure. Thus each card in the Major Arcana should have a page whose structure is identical, differing in the content on the basis of a specific card. The same should be said of other pages associated with the deck.

Furthermore, the content of each page should be appropriately divided according to the type of page it is. The pages for the Major and Minor Arcana should discuss what they have in common, as well as potentially summarize their members. As we drill down into pages on more specific content, we can add detail, so that a page on a suit specializes in the symbolism of the suit in general, whereas the page for a particular card goes into more detail on that specific card (although we may want to decide whether or not to have separate pages for each card in the Minor Arcana at all).

Sadly, this consistency is currently extremely lacking, as a casual observation of the pages involved will reveal. I personally am not well versed in anything beyond the most extremely basic facts of the Tarot deck, and am not able to contribute a significant amount of content. However, I suggest that we attempt to agree upon a format for each of the different types of pages (suit, group, card) and then attempt to implement it accross all the pages associated with the deck.

Does this sound like a good plan to everyone?

Maratanos (talk) 05:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)