Talk:Tarot

Ş

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tarot article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3

Archived discussions that seemed to be finished here on 10.08.2005 to /Archive 01-- AlexR 10:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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.[reply]

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.[reply]

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[reply]

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://72.14.203.104/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[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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.[reply]

"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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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![reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]