From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The table comparing the order of trumps in the various decks contains an error. A.E. Waite's deck has no. 8 (VIII) as Strength and no. 11 (XI) as Justice -- not the other way around. Please fix. Joe Smith92.146.179.166 (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no error, according to the pictoral glyphs of the Rider-Waite tarot deck. Ernobe (talk) 17:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

This article is so seriously erroneous in so many details it should not really be included in Wikipedia in its present form. For a start Ellic Howe is/was not Ely Starr! Proceed from there. KitMarlowe3 (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I AM ACTIVELY WORKING ON THIS ARTICLE!!! I am slowly going through this article, removing questionable references, providing historical detail,and fleshing out the the argument. If you have concerns about the direction of the rewrite, please post on this talk page first BEFORE reverting my changes. I have spent over 40 hours on this article so far fixing it up and raising the standard of evidence and logic, and I don't want to have to repeat that work for a second time. I am more than happy to answer questions about my choice of reference, respond to concerns about article style and length, or deal with any issues that other editors may raise as appropriate. Please be patient we me.Progress through the article is slow because as I go I am ordering the books listed as references (some of which are out of print or hard to find) in order to evaluate their suitability for this page. It is going to take me a couple months to finish this article at which point I hope that interested editors will nominate it as a "good" article (or whatever). Help me achieve that! Mike Sosteric PhD 13:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talkcontribs)

I think tarot divination deserves its own article in keeping with some of the other language Wikipedias. Smiloid (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is quite problematic. I don't know much about wikipedia's standards, but on the basis of pure reason, it seems that the article's title makes little sense. I was redirected here by clicking on tarot reading, and the article seems to be specifically about tarot reading. The title 'Divinatory, esoteric and occult tarot' seems to claim that using tarot cards for the purpose of divination is connected to the esoteric or the occult, which to me would seem to be a separate claim with its own need of reference which this article does not provide. The association of this article with the 'New Religion' project would seem to make the same claim. However, using playing cards for divination, or 'cartomancy', is a relatively recent practice in history, and seems to come specifically from con artists having no particular association with any particular cults. It would seem to me that a connection between people significant to the history of tarot reading to a particular religious or occult group would be necessary to establish it being a part of new religion or the occult. The article claims that tarot divination is related to 'Kabbalah and Medieval Alchemy', yet no part of the Kabbalah, nor any reference to Medieval Alchemy is made. The few citations the article has are poor, and seemingly come from unreliable sources such as a book by Paul Huson, who is an actor with no formal education in religion. I am an atheist, and therefor have no personal concern with how 'New Religion' portrays itself, yet to me it seems they would be a foul way out if they were to claim tarot divination was a part of religious practices, especially when the historical information does not seem to concur with this claim. It appears to come strictly from swindlers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the articles concerning the founders of this divinatory practice, Etteilla,Antoine Court de Gébelin, you will see that they were occultists so on that basis tarot reading is connected with occultism. I've edited the intro to the article which claimed a connection with Alchemy and Kabbalah. Tarot reading, as commonly practiced today, is rooted in the works of French occult writers.Smiloid (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The "New Religious Movement" template was not placed by me but by someone connected with that project. I understand how one would dispute that card reading is an actual religion. However that same template appears here as well

Talk:Comet Hale–Bopp. Perhaps if you bring that up with the Religion project.Smiloid (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


Three Card Tarot Spreads, Five Card Tarot Spreads, Nine Card Tarot Spreads, Celtic Cross Tarot Spreads, Large Tarot Spreads, Shape-Based Tarot Spreads, icetea8 (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be expanding the article in that way. So far, what's currently in that section is not even adequately sourced. Plus there is the issue that "Wikipedia is not a howto guide". For an encyclopedia, I think that a general (sourced!) explanation of what a tarot spread is, with a (sourced!) list of named variants and a small number of examples of usage, is certainly sufficient. Yworo (talk) 13:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


I'll be working on the article over the next several weeks. My intent is to flesh out the linkages between early tarot and Occult practices in the 18th through 20th century, name some names (of key people, key decks), and so on.I'll perhaps look at spreads. Any suggestions on sources, directions, welcome Dr.Sosteric (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've posted links to various sources above. One thing I think should be included here is the Bolognese tarot divination. Very few people know of the Bolognese practice as it was very recently discovered.Smiloid (talk) 10:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Links etc

March 7 - 2013 -> 861 internal back links link:,_esoteric_and_occult_tarot (47) -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talkcontribs) 17:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Note to Smiloid.

The use of Tarot for cartomancy, can be traced to 1690 in England. It does indeed appear to be a separate history although, having said that, cartomancy becomes inextricably linked with the esoteric tarot at its inception. I'll work on the article and cover a bit of the history of cartomancy, but at the point where we get into the esoteric tarot the two become one and the same.

Dr.Sosteric (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're confusing cartomancy with standard playing cards with tarot cartomancy. They do have a separate history. Modern occult tarot originates in 18th century France. There was however an independent practice of tarot cartomancy in Bologna, Italy shorty prior to the French occult appropriation of tarot, but it was an independent development which did not influence the French or English tarot occultists. Here are some sources for this information

Smiloid (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm not sure if those sources are accurate. Mary Greer points to a reference in Pedro Ciruelo (1528) that she says makes a reference to Italian cartomancy. The quotation is "Estas suertes se echan en muchas maneras; o con dados o con cartas de naipes o con cédulas escritas"

I threw that into Google translate and it comes up "This lot is cast in many ways, or with dice or cards or letters of written ballots." admittedly we need a real Spanish speaker to translate that but even now I'm not seeing a reference to cartomancy here. More likely the author is referring to use of the Tarot for gambling purposes. doesn't seem to contain any reference to italian cartomancy suggest Tarot cartomancy did exist in Italy, but admits there are no printed sources and it was thus an "oral" tradition. In fact it says "Until 2000, the Bolognese tradition seems to have been a purely oral tradition" which doesn't seem to make any sense at all. Surely the Bolognese oral tradition would have been put down into words long before 2000.

I'm still not seeing any evidence in the suggested references for Tarot Cartomany prior to 18th century France, but maybe I'm blind.

Dr.Sosteric (talk) 13:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Smiloid, you are be right after all. Franco Pratesi. Tarot in Bologna: Documents from the University Library. The Playing-Card, Vol. XVII, No. 4. pp 136-146).[1] contains the required evidence! Thanks for bringing this to my attention!

Pratesi also points out the use of the trumps for political allegory.

Dr.Sosteric (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

destructive revert[edit]

Hi there, I just had two weeks of edits to an article reverted based on a spurious claim that my sources did not meet Wikipedia standards. In fact all my edits have been sourced with from established scholarly sources, or primary sources in the occult literature. The article I have created has been a marked improvement over the article that was there before. In fact I began editing the article because the article called for attention from an EXPERT on the occult tarot, of which I am. The sources that I have added to the article include

  • ^ Ronald Decker and Michael Dummett, History of the Occult Tarot, London: Duckworth, 2002 ISBN 978-0715631225
  • ^ Paul Huson Mystical Origins of the Tarot: From Ancient Roots to Modern Usage, Vermont: Destiny Books, 2004 ISBN 978-0892811908
  • ^ Robert Place, The Tarot: History, Symbolism, and Divination, New York: Tarcher/Penguin, 2005 ISBN 978-1585423491
  • Ronald Decker and Michael Dummett. A history of the occult tarot, 1870-1970. London: Duckworth, 2002. ISBN 0715610147.
  • a b c d Michael Dummett. The Game of Tarot. London: Duckworth, 1980. ISBN 0715631225
  • R. Steele. A notice of the Ludus Triumphorum and Some Early Italian Card Games: With Some Remarks on the Origin of the Game of Cards,' Archaelogia, vol LVII, 1900. pp. 185-200
  • ^ P.D. Ouspensky. The Symbolism of the tarot: philosophy of occultism in pictures and numbers. Dover Publications. 1976
  • ^ Inna Semetsky. Tarot images and spiritual education: the three I’s model. International Journal of Children’s Spirituality. 16(3): 249–260. 2011
  • ^ Eliphas Levi. The Key of the Mysteries. Translated by Aleister Crowley. Red Wheel/Weiser. 2002 ISBN 0877280789
  • ^ John Beeb. A Tarot Reading on the Possibility of Nuclear War. Psychological Perspectives: A Quarterly Journal of Jungian Thought. 16(1): 97-106. pp. 97
  • ^ Sallie Nichols. The Wisdom of the Fool. Psychological Perspective: A Quarterly Journal of Jungian Thought. 5(2): 97-116. 1974
  • ^ Inna Semetsky. When Cathy was a Little Girl: The Healing Praxis of Tarot Images. International Journal of Children's Spirituality. 15(1): 59-72. 2010. pp. 59

I am relying extensively on DUMMETT who is a respected authority in the field. Can I just go ahead and undo the revert? and can I get a better explanation from the fellow who did the revert on why he would do that? Mike Sosteric PhD 23:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

the current revert takes it back to a time when wiki officials were calling for attention from an expert, when it less scholarly than it was after my intervention, and when the actual citations came primarily from occult authors themselves, and NOT established historical experts (like Dummett).,_esoteric_and_occult_tarot. Seems to be posted by User:Dr.Sosteric talk at 23:09, 11 March 2013‎ (UTC) sign added by Tito Dutta (contact) 23:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, you'll notice that I kept most of your edit to the introduction, but not this section: [2], which if anything, should probably just be a single well written short paragraph. Note that you are expected to discuss the issue on the article talk page, as is highlighted in WP:BRD. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Welcome to Teahouse! Have you tried to discuss it with the editor or at its talk page? --Tito Dutta (contact) Editor in question is already replying! --Tito Dutta (contact) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
NO, you took out a substantial portion of the history of the occult and divinatory tarot, a history that is both sourced in established historical work, and relevant to the title of the document. You have stripped out tons of historical detail, all properly sourced, all relevant to the article, and all deeply informative and interesting to a Sociologist like myself. I have been building a history of the the occult and cartomantic tarot, providing links to primary sources, building a comparison of occult and cartomantic decks, incorporating reference suggestions by other users, and generally improving the scholarly quality of the article. I am doing this as part of my own research program into the tarot, and as part of an article I am writing entitled The Sociology of the Western Tarot, which I will publish in an established scholarly journal. If the article is too long now it can certainly be shortened after completion but your reversion lowers the quality of the article.

I began editing this article because in an earlier version of that article there was a call for expert attention

I thought I could contribute my scholarly expertise, training, and the research I was currently doing to improving the article. I am doing this as part of my research at Athabasca University into the scholarly utility of the wiki (see my talk page "The Revolution that is" for a research note that hopefully be published in the International Review of Research into Open and Distance Education (currently under review).

You have reverted to a version of the article contemporaneous with that appeal, and removed that appeal to make it look as if the article is now an improvement over my contributions, which it is not. If you have a concern with article length you should have raised that on my talk page and asked me to deal with it, rather than stomping in an undoing clos to forty hours of research labour. You should also have identified the specific "self published" sources you refer to (there may be one, which I'm more than happy to take out). But again, a note on my talk page would have shown more respect for my work than you have shown.

You're not making a good case for the scholarly utility of the wiki when you stomp in like that and just erase the contributions of a scholar hard at work on the article. I am quite offended and put off by this.

i read the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and will move this into the talk page. I'm shacking my head though at the extra work this is creating for me just because you didn't bother to carefully check the citations I added to the document, or ask about the historical detail I was adding before you went ahead and reverted. The sections you deleted had the most authoritative sources in the entire article.

Also please note on the talk page I was explaining what I intended to do (see my TODO section above where I explicitly inform about my intentions). Did you even look at the talk page before you erased all the work I had done? Shouldn't you have read the talk page and responded to my OBVIOUS and POLITE NOTIFICATION OF MY INTENTIONS before you reverted, perhaps suggesting citations (as I requested) or providing guidance on further edits?Mike Sosteric PhD 00:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleting an informative table without cause[edit]

You know, I'm shaking my head even more after seeing you took out the table that I was creating that provided a historical overview of the major arcana from several seminal occult decks, and replaced it with an older, less informative table. I am sure ANYBODY interested in the occult and cartomantic table would have found the existence of such a comparison, which I was putting together with painstaking detail, quite interesting.

To be specific you replaced this table (which is based on exhaustive research into seminal tarot decks), all emerging either from Dummett (1980), Dummett and Decker (2002), or actual examination of historic card images...

Tarot de Marseille De Geblein Etteilla's Egyptian Tarot Paul Christian
(divinatory meaning in bold)
Oswald Wirth Golden Dawn Book of Thoth (Crowley)
1 the Bateleur (Mountebank) Example Example the Magus / Will Magician Example Example Example
2- the Popess Example Example Gate of the (occult) Sanctuary / Knowledge Priestess Example Example Example
3- the Empress Example Example Isis - Urania / Action Empress Example Example Example
4 - the Emperor Example Example Cubic Stone / Realisation Emperor Example Example Example
5 - the Pope Example Example Master of the Mysteries/Arcana / Occult Inspiration Hierophant Example Example Example
6 - Love or the Lovers Example Example Two Roads / Ordeal Lovers Example Example Example
7 - the Chariot Example Example Chariot of Osiris / Victory Chariot Example Example
8 - Justice Example Example Themis (Scales and Blade) / Equilibrium Justice Example Example Example
9 - the Hermit Example Example the Veiled Lamp / Wisdom Hermit Example Example
10 - Wheel of Fortune Example Example the Sphinx / Fortune Fortune Example Example Example
11 - Fortitude Example Example the Muzzled(tamed) Lion / Strength Strength Example Example Example
12 - the Hanged Man Example Example The Sacrifice / Sacrifice Hanged Man Example Example Example
13 - Death Example Example The Skeleton Reaper / Transformation Death Example Example Example
14 - Temperance Example Example the Two Urns (the genius of the sun) / Initiative Temperance Example Example Example
15 - the Devil Example Example Typhon / Fate Devil Example Example
16 - the Tower Example Example the Beheaded Tower (Lightning Struck) / Ruin Tower Example Example Example
17 - the Star Example Example Star of the Magi / Hope Star Example Example Example
18 - the Moon Example Example the Twilight / Deception Moon Example Example Example
19 - the Sun Example Example the Blazing Light / (earthly) Happiness Sun Example Example Example
20 - Judgment Example Example the Awakening of the Dead / Renewal Judgement Example Example Example
21 - the World Example Example the Crown of the Magi / Reward world Example Example Example
Le Mat (Fool) Example Example 0 the Crocodile (between 20 and 21) / Expiation Fool Example Example Example

with this one, which contains nothing but a duplication of information that any user of tarot could get simply by picking up a standard deck.

Latin English Name 1 English Name 2 Description Cards
Major Arcana Greater Secrets Trump Cards Consists of twenty two cards without suits. The Fool
The Magician
The High Priestess
The Empress
The Emperor
The Hierophant
The Lovers
The Chariot
The Hermit
Wheel of Fortune
The Hanged Man
The Devil
The Tower
The Star
The Moon
The Sun
The World
Minor Arcana Lesser Secrets Consists of fifty six cards, divided into four suits of fourteen cards each; ten numbered cards and four court cards. The court cards are the King, Queen, Knight, and Jack, in each of the four tarot suits. The traditional Italian tarot suits are swords, batons, coins, and cups; in modern tarot decks, however, the batons suit is often called wands, rods, or staves, while the coins suit is often called pentacles or disks.

And please note the table that you restored in INNACCURATE. It implies Ettielle's deck in the preamble to the sectin, but uses modern arcana names derived form the Tarot de Marseilles, and established fully in the A.E. Waite deck. This is a deck that Ettielle BROKE WITH in developing his cartomantic/Egyptian alternative. There is no historical detail in the table you restored and it doesn't provide any information that couldn't otherwise be acquired by simply picking up a modern deck. The table you restored in an absolute waste of Wikipedia space.

Can you please tell me why you removed my table and replaced it with an older, less informative, historically vacuous construction?

Mike Sosteric PhD 00:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleting properly cited sources[edit]

Here's an example of one of the paragraphs you deleted

Four individuals stand out as the founding fathers of the widespread esoteric tarot (and tarot cartomancy). These individuals are Antoine Court de Gébelin, M[onsieur] le C[omte] de M.***,[12] Etteilla, and Mlle Marie-Anne Adelaide Lenormand (1776-1843) (whose real name was Jean-Baptiste Alliette).[13] Understanding the profound magical, mystical, semiotic, psychological, and archetypal significance of the Tarot requires us to understand the intersection of Tarot with 18th and 19th century occult as imprinted on the tarot. The modern occult tarot emerged at exactly the same time as the cartomantic tarot did and can be traced precisely to the publication of Le Monde Primitif, by Antoine Court de Gébelin, a Protestant pastor. Court de Gebelin's seminal book was published by private subscription several years after he became an active Freemason and member of the Lodge of the Neuf Soeurs.[3] It is a massive opus, incomplete at nine volumes![3]. Most of the book is taken up promulgating a wholly speculative (and suspiciously Feudal and Christian) view of history that suggested there had once been a "golden age" (the age of the garden of Eden perhaps) in which "all men had shared a common language, common customs, a common culture and a common religion."[14] According to Court this golden age was a reflection of "an eternal and immutable order, which unites heaven and earth, the body and the soul, the physical and the moral...."[3]

all citations from this paragraph are Dummett (1980). This paragraph is important, identifies the four founding figures in the history of the occult/cartomantic tarot, identifies key historical primary sources, and summarizes close to twenty pages of Dummett's commentary. Subsequent paragraphs provide the same key historical details, identifying the contributions of each of these four figures, key primary texts, and so on.

The section

Forward into the Mysteries[edit]

Is a section I just started. It was to deal with neo-occultists staring with Levi and continuing finally to A.E. Waite and Crowley. One of the deleted sections included the following:

The idea of the cards as a mystical key was further developed by Eliphas Lévi (1810-1875). Lévi (whose real name was Alphonse-Louise Constance) was educated in the seminary of Saint-Sulipice, was ordained as a deacon, but never became a priest. Lévi published several occult books including:

   1855 Dogme de le haute magie
   1856 Rituel de le haute magie (companion to Dogme de le haute magie)
   1856 Dogme et rituel del Haute Magie (the 1855 and 1856 books in one volume)
   1860 Historie de le Magie
   1861 La Clé des grands mysteres
   1865 La Science des esprites

Dummett (1980, pp. 114) notes that it is from Dogme et rituel that the "whole of the modern occultist movement stems." Lévi claims to have discovered a great secret, formerly hidden in ancient parables and esoteric obfuscation, and that secret is a Lux (light, or Astral light) that moves behind and is contained within all of reality. On the tarot, Lévi claimed to have "been the first to 'have discovered intact and still unknown this key of all doctrines and all philosophies of the old world'; 'without the Tarot', he tells us, 'the Magic of the ancients is a closed book....'" Dummett (1980, pp. 118). Lévi rejected Court de Gébelin's claims about an Egyptian origin of the deck symbols (going instead back to Tarot de Marseille, called it The Book of Hermes, suggested it had immense antiquity, that it existed long before Moses, and that is was in fact a universal key of erudition, philosophy, and magic that could (and would) unlock Hermetic and Cabbalistic mysteries. According to Lévi, "An imprisoned person with no other book than the Tarot, if he knew how to use it, could in a few years acquire universal knowledge, and would be able to speak on all subjects with unequalled learning and inexhaustible eloquence.[15]

The above is important because it identifies Eliphas Lévi as a key figure in the development of the modern occultist movement, and identifies why that is!!! In addition the historical document where the contribution can be found is identified (i.e. Dogme et rituel), and Levi's hyperbolic claims (claims that remain a feature of occult writers) are noted. Once again, Dummett (1980) and Decker and Dummett (2002) are primary sources.

I could go on but the historical information and attention to detail you stripped out is stunning to me. I can't even begin magine why you would do it, except that perhaps you jumped to too quick conclusions. I can see criticisms of the article length and style as appropriate, and some of the information should go into Levi's entry on Wikipedia, but as I said in my TODO, it is a work in progress and I would have cleaned it up when I was through the history.

Mike Sosteric PhD 00:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Through the Temple Door[edit]

Here's another section removed by the bold revision

Shortly before Oswald Wirth published his first deck, the Marquis Stanislas de Guaita formed the Cabalistic Order of the Rosy Cross (1988) along with Dr Papus, François-Charles Barlet, and Joséphin Sar Péladan (1858-1918). Prior to this there had been a general decline and degeneration of occult secret brotherhoods but de Guaita's foundaion of the Rosy Cross Order rejuvenated the occult movement. This is a significant moment in the development of the occult tarot since it is at this point that the Tarot enters into the temple as an important aspect aspect of ritual, in particular initiation.[3] The association of Tarot with initiation was formalized by François-Charles Barlet whose 1889 essay Le Tarot initiatique give a interpretation of the trumps as an initiatory sequence chronicling the spiritual development from neophyte to adept.[3] This was followed by the publication of Le Tarot des Bohémiens by Papus, a significant milestone because it represents the first authentic attempt to "reveal" the wisdom of the ancients and the divinatory excellence of the occult Tarot..[3] This may seem counter intuitive at this point but prior to the publication of Le Tarot des Bohémiens occultists had simply extolled the virtues of the Tarot as masterpiece without ever enumerating the details of the Secret Doctrine contained within. Papus's attempt is tortuous, dotted with dismissive sexism, full of EPMO (like "false ascription," a common sin among esoteric writers), and fails to do anything other than read into the Tarot already established doctrine[3]

This section contributed to the history of the Tarot being written in this article by pointing out the exact historical moment when the Occult tarot became association with "INITIATION" into secret orders. It also points out the figures associated with this development, as well as the primary sources (e.g. Le Tarot des Bohémiens) where the moment occurred. Once again the source for this very important paragraph (and it is important because the occult tarot is also an initiatory tarot from this moment forward) is Dummett (1980). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talkcontribs) 01:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Destroyed Comparison[edit]

Interested individuals can compare my version of the article,_esoteric_and_occult_tarot&oldid=543506044

with the destroyed version here,_esoteric_and_occult_tarot

Notice the loss of detail, the erasure of an important table of tarot data, the removal of a section of "founding figures," and the erasure of detailed enumeration of the contributions of these founding figures in the history of the occult/divinatory tarot. Notice the inclusion of females in the list of founding figures (a non-sexist overview in a historically horribly sexist endeavor). Also gone is a developing distinction between cartomantic decks and occult decks, established criticisms of occult authors, key historical moments, and an analysis of the emergence of key ideas in the occult tradition (i.e. notions that that tarot had Egyptian origins, cabalistic significance, divine origins, and etc.). All in all reversions totally undermine contributions that significantly improved the historical and critical accuracy of the article and that would surely have led to a scholarly relevant treatment of the subject matter.

Also note here is the original article as it appeared just prior to receiving my attention,_esoteric_and_occult_tarot&oldid=529782672

Note the wikiproject appeal for an expert to pay attention. What exactly was the point of that appeal if, when an expert showed up, the contributions would be erased?

Mike Sosteric PhD 01:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion?[edit]

May I be so bold as to suggest that you work on all these individual problems separately, and maybe one at a time? All editors on Wikipedia are volunteers, with more or less time to spend on any given thing. Also please remember to sign your contributions by typing four tildes (~~~~), rather than typing out your name? That time stamps the addition, and makes the discussion easier to follow. Remember, there is no deadline for anything on Wikipedia. If this takes a couple weeks (or longer) to work out, it takes that long. You've got to give the other editors time to respond. As the article was reverted back to where it was before the editor wanting to add the new content came along, perhaps you all should just address this one issue at a time. And yes, I see that an expert opinion was requested on this article, but you all have to remember that articles are edited by consensus, and expert opinions are valued and appreciated, at the end of the day, it will still be the consensus of all the editors on the page as to what should be here. One editor's status as an expert does not make his input more important. It all comes down to the agreement on the strength of the various sources and the strength of the reference and policy based arguments made by all the editors working on this page. I will not be one of them. I just dropped in to offer some constructive hints as to a methodology for resolving this conflict. Best of luck to you all. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Reverting the document[edit]

I understand this is a consensus thing, at the same time there isn't any question about the validity of the sources I was using. My primary sources for constructing the early esoteric and cartomantic history in this article are Michael Dummett's exhaustive tarot studies. Unless I am completely out to lunch, these sources are above question. That these sources where questioned is an indication that the editor involved was not paying attention, reverting without solid foundation, for reasons yet to be properly explained. I even wrote on the article talk page what I was doing. Personally I think he just came in, saw a bunch of edits, maybe didn't like some of the statements, and did a knee jerk reversion. I understand that kind of thing is encouraged here, but that doesn't make it right.

I wish to revert the document back to my last changes. I can then begin addressing whatever issues remain, like the length of one of the section, or whatever other concerns emerge, by responding to a discussion on the talk page. I don't believe a BOLD revert is called for in a case like this since my understanding is BOLD reverts are designed to get people's attention and there is no need for that. I was paying attention (judging by my consistent edits over the past few weeks). I also believe that my additions to this article are important not only because they have added historical detail to the entire document that was missing previously, but because they are working towards an end goal which is an explanation of the emergence and explanation of the occult tarot, a comparison of the various decks, etc.

I'll revert later today if there are no objections. In the mean time I would like to know, are there are any Wikipedia policies that speak to the proper editorial etiquette when an article is actively being worked on by an editor? To be honest the actions of IRWOLFIE were abrupt, disrespectful, and dismissive of the work I had done. My initial thought was to simply throw up my hands and walk away, accepting standard scholar's criticisms of Wikipedia (i.e. that it is not a good source or space for scholarly work). I think that would have been a loss for Wikipedia and myself since my intent has been to do a lot of work on this article, and related articles, on occult topics and figures related to the tarot (all of which need considerable attention IMHO).

As for one editorial opinion being more important than another, that seems to be to be off by a mile. If Michael Dummett (RIP) came in here and made an edit on this document I would have to consider long and hard before making a revert. I wouldn't make any sense to just say, well my opinion is just as relevant as his because it wouldn't be. I know far less then he did on this topic and if my concern is the quality of this resource, I would have to defer to his expert opinion, unless I could come up with a reasonable justification. I wonder in this context, are there any wikipedia policies that acknowledge when an individual editor has a specific expertise in an area?

Mike Sosteric PhD 12:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talkcontribs)

Keeping in mind the suggestions I have made above (Start by NOT asserting that your sources are unquestionable), please try to work with Wolfe. If that fails, You can ask for a third opinion editor to come in WP:3O and if that fails, you can request a mediator thru WP:DRN. There are other options beyond that, but they are never pleasant. Wolfe has given you some ground already. Accept that, keep civil, and keep your writing tone in the debate in a form that shows you are open to discussion. remember that primary sources are generally discouraged (A dissertation, no. A dissertation published in a recognized journal, yes). also keep in mind you are writing an encyclopedia article designed for understanding by most anyone with a high school education, not a scholarly paper. Think textbook for a high school junior. The idea is to take the subject, refine your dispute to something that you can come to a consensus on, and then write the text so that your 17 year old can understand it. You give some up, he gives some up, you form an agreement and move on. That has always been and probably always be the way Wikipedia works. Again, good luck. I know nothing of the subject matter here, and don't care to, so don't bother making arguments to me. i am just trying to get you guys to talk to each other in a constructive way. Your last paragraph shows me that you are still not getting what I am trying to tell you. this is a tertiary source. We only publish what others are writing about research. Original research has no place here. We never write about anyone's opinion. Without sourcing to secondary sources, we would not allow Einstein to write on the theory of relativity. Gtwfan52 (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Ya I get it about secondary sources. I am using secondary sources and I'm not quoting original research. And I'm sure Einstein or Dummet would be able to cite appropriate secondary sources as well. Down the road I do plan on adding my conclusions from my "A Sociology of the Western Tarot" article, but I will only do that once that article has been accepted into an established journal. I will respect Wikipedia guidelines on source authority and stuff and I will learn as I go. I also get what you are saying about the tone and age level of the article. Obviously what I've done needs work in that area and I can do that, but it would have been far easier to simply suggest that in the talk page and let me work it out in the article as already constructed.
Since the sections in question were sourced with authoritative secondary sources, I would like to revert the edit. I can make immediate changes to the tone of that section, but allot of the material in it should stay in my opinion. I want to revert it back, make changes to make it acceptable, and move on from there. I see no reason not to bring back the table I added, or the sections on the founding figures (why would somebody interested in the occult tarot now want to know who the founding figures were?, tarot initiation, etc. That section is almost done anyway since I really only have to mention a few more figures before completing a comparison of the occult/cartomantic decks.
I understand the give and take nature of this, but I'm also concerned about the scholarly quality of the article. The reversion back to the article and the removal of those sections lowers the quality and utility of the article, removes historical detail, and defaces what would become a solid and well written article on the occult/cartomantic tarot. And I'm not making these arguments to you, I'm just making these arguments because I want the article reverted back, even if that does mean I need to make changes to content and tone. Thanks for taking the time to educate me here. I do sincerely appreciate your time and effort.Mike Sosteric PhD 14:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
You shouldn't be trying to add content based on sources which are written by you, that would be a Conflict of interest. See WP:COI. Rather you can suggest changes based on your own material on the talk page, and let other editors decide, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


Dr. Sosteric, you are new to Wikipedia, and it will take a while for you to learn how we interact here. I suggest that you read and think about a guideline called assume good faith. Most of the editors you've interacted with so far are highly experienced editors working on a wide range of topics. They lack your topic specific expertise perhaps but they are experts in building and maintaining the world's greatest free information resource . You are expected to assume that other editors are acting in good faith for the good of the encyclopedia.. The stable content of an article is determined by consensus among ALL interested editors, whether or not they are topic experts. A collaborative, constructive attitude when interacting with others is expected, so please avoid accusing other editors of destructive behavior without first making a sincere effort to compromise and develop consensus about article content. And please be aware that we do not publish original research here. Everything you write on Wikipedia must be an accurate and neutral summary of what reliable, independent sources say about the topic. Good luck to you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources[edit]

I accept Michael Dummett as a reliable, academically accepted source on this topic. Paul Huson though, whose work is published by Destiny Books strikes me as an advocate and a popularizer rather than a high quality academic source that we want for an article like this. What do others think? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds about right, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Wolfe, I totally agree with you. In fact, Huson was there before I got to the article. If you compare and earlier version of the article here:,_esoteric_and_occult_tarot&oldid=529782672
with a more recent version by me here,_esoteric_and_occult_tarot&oldid=542628421
You'll see that I was in the process of REMOVING references to Huson. Had you not reverted the edits that citation would have been gone within a week, maybe two, replaced by legitimate historical/sociological sources
Indeed, the only section left where Huson is referenced is a section a) not written by me and b) that I would have removed altogether, or shortened to a single paragraph, given the chance.
I just want to enter in an apology for getting so worked up. I realize your actions are in good faith and that you are concerned with the quality of this page, as am I. As a personal anecdote, I find the history of occult topics is a ridiculous, a historical, anti-academic, sociologically vacuous affair and I'm hoping to help remedy that. I've been studying the area for ten years but even so, and even for me, it a difficult and challenging topic, given that it broaches religion, politics, economics, and so on. I am open to suggestion and criticism and really hope to be able to open some space on the Wikipedia for improvement in these resources. Let's work together to improve the quality of these resources so we can make them well written, comprehensive, and authoritative.Mike Sosteric PhD 16:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talkcontribs)
Thank you for the apology, Dr. Sosteric. Accepted by me. As to the matter of Huson, at the Teahouse, immediately after you told everyone that you were an "EXPERT", you listed sources that you said you had added to the article. Huson was second on that list, and accordingly, the second source I looked at. So which is it, adding Huson or removing Huson? If Huson is an unacceptable source, then be bold and remove Huson immediately, explaining why in your edit summaries. If Huson is a marginal source, valid perhaps only for documenting what practitioners argue rather than as a high-quality academic source, then make your opinion of the source clear. so that we can come to consensus about this particular source. What you've said, correctly in my view, about the "history of occult topics" should make it clear to you that this broad topic area needs participation and overview by generalist, uninvolved editors. Otherwise, this whole group of articles will deteriorate into a morass of fringe theorizing, speculation and utterly unverifiable claims. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
My mistake. I should have checked my cut and paste more carefully. Anyway, the intent is removing Huson. "Be bold and remove Huson Immediately?" Ok I will do that in the future. My strategy for editing this article however was to do it gently and progressively so as not to appear to be "storming the battlements," offending previous editors, and making myself a nuisance early in the game. Apparently I should have just come in here and erased the whole article to begin with, since ultimately it is my intention to remove all the old materials and replace it with properly sourced commentary. That would have been pretty bold. But thinking about that I though I'd just raise the ire of everybody involved, so I took a more cautious approach. Be bold or be cautious? Is there a standard procedure for working with article such as this one which, as you say, always have a potential for "into a morass of fringe theorizing, speculation and utterly unverifiable claims." Mike Sosteric PhD 19:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talkcontribs)
There is no standard procedure, though blanking a page is almost always considered bad form unless it is an unambiguous attack page directed against a living person. Even there, I would leave a brief inoffensive stub article. The number one principle is discussing the changes calmly on the talk page, and with other interested editors. Diplomacy and a collaborative attitude in such matters goes a long way. In addition, if you propose a fundamental rewrite of an article, it is a good idea, in my opinion, to write a brief critique of the page in its current form, and a brief description of what you intend to accomplish with the revision. I used the word "brief" twice in that last sentence to emphasize that a very lengthy argument will often turn off other editors. WP:TLDR It is better to break the changes down into, say, 20 or 30 discrete chunks, each properly referenced, so that it is easy for those of us without topic expertise to read, analyze, examine the source and either concur or object. There is no rush to transform the article overnight, especially since in this case, other editors have actively expressed an interest in the changes you are making. Consensus takes time, but the result is a better article that all interested editors can be proud of.
In this specific case, several of the editors who have commented probably came to this article because of the Teahouse discussion. I did. There may be other interested editors who haven't yet noticed. You may wish to examine the article's edit history, and see who the content creators have been over the years. If any of them are still active on Wikipedia, you could ask for input on their talk pages.
Please try to get into the habit of signing all of your talk page comments with four tildes, "~~~~". This will add your signature and date stamp. Otherwise a bot will do it for you some time later, and experienced users may think you don't yet know the ropes. Clearly, you want to learn and contribute here, so that is a friendly social hint. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes I am in the habit of doing that, but sometimes it doesn't' work for some reason. I presume it is because I have to sign on exactly the same line as i end the comment?Mike Sosteric PhD 13:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talkcontribs)
By his own admission Michael Dummett is not an expert on this topic - "(t)he fortune telling and occult part of it has never been my principal interest" see He is an expert in the history of card games, which is not what this article is about. I suggest that it would be more in keeping with the actual topic of this article if you relied on actual experts in occult divinatory tarot, whose names are legion; Crowley, Waite, Levi, Knight, McGregor Mathers, DuQuette, Westcott. If you are unfamiliar with these authors then this is not the page you should be editing.
I'd also like to strongly suggest that you don't continue to delete large swathes of the article because they don't have citations. The correct way to go about this is to add citations or ask others to do so by adding the citation required tag where appropriate. People will continue to revert your edits if you do this. I understand you are well motivated in your task, but you need to realise that even if you spend a great many hours editing the article this will not make others privilege your input over theirs. You may have a well formed idea about how you'd like the article to be shaped and believe it will benefit from your expertise. But so do many others who have contributed to this article over a long period of time. It is personally offensive to me that you have chosen to edit this article and yet you declare that you find the occult laughable. It's hard to take you seriouly as an objective editor for this page when you make such statements. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
????? Dummett says that tarot is not his principle interest, not that he is not an expert on the topic. I'm going to presume you actually haven't read any Dummett because if you did you would know how absurd your above statement was. My God. There isn't anyone on the planet who has a done a more exaustive history and study of the occult tarot then Dummett. As for your experts on occult, they aren't really experts at all. Dummett does a masterful job of pointing out their antischolarly, ahistorical, extremely biased, and often absurd approach to tarot. Not that I would go so far as to say there isn't something interesting, spiritual, or mystical about Tarot, but if it is there you won't fine a reasonable treatement in the the work of any of the names you mentioned. And yes, I have read them.
As for deleting large swaths, when I started this I was gently going through the article, removing sections that had no bases in fact, and that wouldn't stand up to scholarly scrutiny, but then somebody came in an removed large swaths of my edit, because they said my citations weren't good enough. When I suggested they not do that because it was offensive and hurt my feelings, they referenced Wiki's BOLD edit policy, and I was shut down and had to fight very hard to convince people i was actually using sold references. Interestingly enough, the people you cite were not considered solid references by other editors on this site. In fact my edits were being reverted not because I was using bad references, but because the editors who came by didn't look enough to see what I was doing and presumed I was using bad references, when in fact I was not.
As for finding the occult laughable, I don't. I'm a student and scholar of the occult. I take mysticism and magic seriously, and not just from a critical perspective (though I am critical of it where criticism is required). What I don't do is take the claims of the tarot patriarchs seriously because they aren't based in any kind of historical fact at all. I'm not saying there isn't something mystically interesting about the Tarot, just that we need to improve these articles with a bit of a historical perspective, a perspective that will hopefully spur additional research on this topic. It is funny, Dummmett says that those interested in the occult tarot don't like history too much, and prefer to reference themselves and engage in "false ascription," but I think accurate history and a critical turn doesn't mean an end to the occult tarot
I am sorry if I offended you but I am just following the editing advice of others on Wikipedia here. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm finding there isn't really any editing standards here and it really just depends on whomemver stomps by with a mouse and a predilection for clicking. Very confusing.
I was told by someone else that I wasn't to tell people to go read any books here, but I suggest you at least go find Dummett's two major sources on this, and read those. That way you won't be importing historical error into these articles and devaluing them as reasonable sources on the tarot and tarot trumps, and moving them back to a stage of edit that other editors criticized as being un-encyclopedic and horrible. In fact I would suggest that anybody that wants to edit these articles should at least have Dummett's three books on the subject to hand otherwise these articles will quickly descend into ahistorical, anti-factual, self referencial silliness.Mike Sosteric PhD 12:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
And could you tell me, where exactly did I say I found the occult laughable. If I did say that I want to remove it because that is hardly my perspective on the Western mysteries.

From this diatribe I can clearly see that you are not an impartial editor capable of encountering other people's opinions with politness and and are incapable of meeting wikipedias most basic requirement, that of assuming good faith. You will find that speaking to other editors like this will not serve you well. You do not own this article. Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
No, I am encountering your opinions. What you call a diatribe is me disagreeing with you. I think you are the one with the issue here. You want an opinion, but you don't want to back it up, defend, or otherwise give any indication that it is a good opinion. I have indeed "encountered" your opinions. In fact, I have countered them, now it is your turn to encounter mine, and counter them if you can. In order to do that you will need to pick up Dummett so you can see what amazing authority he is, you will need to tell me where I said that I thought the occult was laughable (your accusation, not mine), you need to address the weird inconsistencies in editing advice I keep getting (be bold, don't be bold/ delete all the bad references, use the bad references). You need to do that because you are giving me contradictory advice. And tell me where were my statements impolite? All I said was suggesting that Dummett was not an authority was absurd and an indication you have never picked up his book? How is that rude and impolite? Is it untrue? Have you read Dummett? And if now, if you have never picked Dummett, how can you claim to represent his expertise or not. And how is challenging your "opinion" of that anything other than dialog between two editors. You have read the talk pages and as you can see there are long standing criticisms of the quality of these articles. No, I do not "own" these articles, but I am taking responsibility for them and I do feel we need to maintain a certain editorial standard, and one of those standards will need to be knowing what is a good source and a bad source. Dummett is a good source on Tarot. Crowley, Waite, Papus, or any of the other patriarchs of the tarot are not. They said some things about Tarot, but most of the things they said they made up. This has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. They bent the tarot to their own purposes and they did in a historical and fanciful sort of way. Sure we can use these references, and I do plan on using them at some point, because whatever they did with the tarot they made it into a spiritual thing. But we cannot compare them in a positive way against Dummett. Dummett (RIP) is a first rate historian and scholar, these other people are not.
Anyway, tell me where I was being impolite specifically. What was it that offended you so much in my diatribe? I know you are here here in good faith, but understand me, the advice I get on editing seems very much random at this point and it is frustrating. First Waite et. al are not good references, and Dummett is. Now Dummett is not, but Waite et. al is. Then somebody tells me I am saying things that I am not, and calling it
And tell me where I said the occult was laughable? You took offense at a statement that I don't believe I made. You put words in my mouth and used that to swing a verbal mace. Maybe I said them, but where? I want to find out so I can both apologize and set the record straight about what I actually think about the occult, and the tarot.
you may claim my statements are strong, and I accept that, but your statement "It is personally offensive to me that you have chosen to edit this article and yet you declare that you find the occult laughable. It's hard to take you seriously as an objective editor for this page when you make such statements" it is equally biting and direct. So what, you can make biting and direct criticisms, call into question my objectivity, and cast aspirations on my editing ability, but I can't do the same. If it is wrong it is wrong and I apologize. But if it is wrong it is wrong and you are in the wrong as well. Mike Sosteric PhD 23:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

From earlier in this page "I find the history of occult topics is a ridiculous, a historical, anti-academic, sociologically vacuous affair... ".
N.B. When you find yourself saying to someone "My god." Then you are not being polite.
You rejected my suggestion that several of the most well known writers on the occult use of tarot are not good sources by stating your opinion that you prefer Dummett's work. I do not suggest that Dummett is not a person who should be cited. However a person who admits they are not an occultist is not going to be the best source for an article about the occult use of the Tarot. Yes, he was written expansively on the history of the tarot, including the history of its early occult use. That is all he is an expert in. He can not be cited as a source for the occult use of the tarot. I'd like to note that his condescending attitude toward those who use the Tarot for occult purposes betrays his biases. This same attitude also shows in your writing on pages related to Tarot here on wikipedia.
The occut use of the tarot is not all about rationality. It is an intuitive activity, which is often attacked by rationalists, exactly as you did, by accusations of having made stuff up. The processes of magic accept the seeking gnosis in arational ways as well as rational ones. Not irrational, arational. Irrational is that which fails the test of rationality. Arational is that which cannot be judged by the test of rationality. It is this aspect that the authors I referred to are experts on, (also note they are not 'my sources' as you claim, they are sources I am suggesting) and any work on the subject of the occult use of tarot would be incomplete without them.
Lastly, please learn to sign your posts. Just put four tildes immediately at the end of your post. Notice I am not saying "My god how can this person not have learned how to sign their posts". This is me being polite. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Collaborative interaction between editors[edit]

Gentlemen ( and Gentle Ladies, if any be present),

First, let me encourage you to conduct yourself in a respectful and collaborative fashion, always keeping the widely accepted behavioral guideline to assume good faith in the forefront of your minds.

Secondly, I want to emphasize the critical importance of reliable sources, and especially the preference for the highest quality, academically accepted sources for contentious or controversial topics.

I encourage both of you to read the content guideline on fringe theories. Here is what it says abut sources: "Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas." Accordingly, books written by advocates of occult tarot, and books published by advocacy publishing houses, should be used very sparingly, and only with clearcut consensus by all involved editors. I will stand firm on this as long as I am involved with this article.

As I have said previously, I have no topic expertise in this field, and my interest is only in maintaining the overall quality of the encyclopedia. At the same time, I am thoroughly convinced that the editorial participation of neutral editors without topic expertise is an essential element of creating and maintaining neutral, well-referenced articles about controversial topics. Accordingly, I do not accept the statement by Dr. Sosteric, "In fact I would suggest that anybody that wants to edit these articles should at least have Dummett's three books on the subject to hand." I will edit any article I choose to edit entirely as I see fit, with online resources, or printed resources, or no resources, relying on logic, experience and established Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Not every edit is a substantive content edit, and not every legitimate and useful edit requires topic expertise. This is a core principle for me. If anyone wants to mail me free copies of Dummet's works or any other works, my address is Jim Heaphy, 3 Palestrina Ct., American Canyon, CA 94503 USA. But I am very unlikely to buy them. That being said, I do find Dummet, based on what I have read about him, to be an impeccable source of the highest academic standards.

On the other hand, Morgan Leigh writes "Crowley, Waite, Levi, Knight, McGregor Mathers, DuQuette, Westcott. If you are unfamiliar with these authors then this is not the page you should be editing." This statement is also unacceptable to me. My function here is to improve the encyclopedia, and uninvolved scrupulously neutral editors, who lack topic expertise, can always bring something useful to the table. Does a New York Times editor working on an article about the Higgs boson need to be an expert on the Higgs boson? I don't think so. I will be frank: I have no wish to develop topic expertise in this area. The only one of these I have any familiarity with is Crowley, and I know of him primarily in the context of mountaineering, which is a field where I have some modest topic expertise. I would need to be convinced that he should be considered a reliable source on any occult topic, other than his own personal opinions on that particular topic. And I would need to research the acceptability of the other sources mentioned to express any opinions. Wikilinks, please, rather than last names?

In conclusion, if the editors chiming in here can collaborate and cooperate and avoid tossing insults around, the result might be a vastly better encyclopedia article. If not? Well, we have many failed articles on controversial topics. Let's not go there. Play nice in the sandbox, please. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I am frustrated though by the cavalier way editorial standards and guidelines seem to be thrown around. What is appropriate seems to depend very much on who is doing the speaking. I'm not pointing any fingers at anybody, just saying that as a newbie the waters are treacherous. As for your comments on editing, sure by all means edit. I still would suggest that anyone who wants to do substantive edits on these controversial articles should read Dummett, or should be listening to someone who has (or should at least find some other valid sources). An article like this has the potential to influence a lot of readers, even scholars, so making it solid is very important IMHO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talkcontribs) 02:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Please learn to sign your talk page posts. It is easy, simply make four tildes the last four characters you sign. Every time, without fail. You are correct that some editors here do not pay proper heed to policies and guidelines. This is an imperfect encyclopedia. But it is in the midst of self perfection, and every sincere, committed editor advances that goal every day. So don't despair. Simply work to make the encyclopedia better. And therefore, it will get better. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

One Source Tag[edit]

I have added this tag today as I feel the article relies too much on the work of Michael Dummett. He is a good source for the history of the tarot cards but his obvious bias against esoteric interpretations of Tarot make him a poor choice for being relied on so heavilly in an article on the occult aspects of Tarot. I have ordered in some books and will be adding references from them once they arrive. In the mean time any input by other editors with sources from other authors would be gratefiuly received.Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Bias, False Ascription, Confusion, and Esoteric Lie of traditional Tarot Sources[edit]

Its great that you are going for extra sources, but if this means you'll be incorporating a historical nonsense into the body of this article, I must object. Dummett is relied on heavily here because of the careful way we brings reality and Truth to the discussion of Tarot. His analysis is historical and detailed and he is very careful about pointing out the false ascription, bias, and lack of concern for historical facts of the "esoteric" tarotists, something that is very, very important to include here. He's not biased against spiritual or mystical knoweldge, he's just a historical paying attention to the facts. You need to be careful about the sorts of "sources" you plan on using for this article, otherwise this article will end up being useless as anything more than esotericist propoganda.

You may find interesting this paper I wrote on tarot entitled A Sociology of Tarot. It is currently under review at the Canadian Journal of Sociology. I would suggest that anyone interested in editing this article have a look at my article first, just so you don't end up reproducing the sorts of historical and spiritual "fancy" that has characterized world knowledge on the tarot for so lon.

Mike Sosteric PhD 15:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talkcontribs)

Going to add an article[edit]

My article The Sociology of Tarot has been accepted for publication in the Canadian Journal of Sociology. Since it is directly relevant to this article, and since it will be available online and open access, i believe it should be added to the document, replacing "citation needed" in appropriate places. The article was reviewed by Robert Place and a historian of Tarot.

any objections?

I've also got some additional references to add to this article now, to address the "only one source" complaint

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talkcontribs) 23:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC) 

Not from me. Personally I think your doing a great job, its good to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBwts (talkcontribs) 14:33, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Renaming article to Tarot reading[edit]

The current name of this article, Divinatory, esoteric and occult tarot seems awkward and most articles seems to just use Tarot reading, including Psychic reading. This change would also match Category:Tarot reading. @Jeraphine Gryphon: as the other active editor on this page.

Is renaming the article a good idea? RevelationDirect (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This title is awkward but we need to have a proper conversation before moving it again, it's been moved a dozen times before. Apparently the current title is "more inclusive". We can't move it to Tarot reading if the current article content is about more than just reading and interpreting the cards. I haven't yet looked through this article properly. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, the Cartomancy article is pretty short, though I think most laypeople think of Tarot cards when hearing of cartomancy. We could maybe do some thinking on what topics we want to cover in the Tarot article, the cartomancy article, and this current article here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Having looked through the Cartomancy article, it's clearly the same thing as tarot reading i.e. fortune telling. The sections in this article which deal with different types of decks should me moved to the Tarot article as that deeals with different types of card decks. At the same time perhaps the Forward into the Mysteries and Through the Temple Door sections of this article can be encyclopediafied, I don't even know where to begin with those. So:
  • The Tarot article should have everything to do with the decks, i.e. their history. AadaamS (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • The Cartomancy article should have everything about using cards for occult pratices, tarot or not.
AadaamS (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks like Cartomancy article, although it technically includes Tarot cards, focuses on divination with non-Tarot standard playing cards. I'm not sure if that's an accurate usage or not though. Tarot seems to be culturally prominant but I've never heard the term "cartomancy" before. We currently have a separate article on Tarot that includes the deck history and a this one for divination with Tarot. Are you thinking this article should be merged so it goes away? RevelationDirect (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
We just need to think about how to organize the information that we have. One possible option that we have is move the info from this article into Tarot and Cartomancy. Given how Tarot cards are the most well-known cards used for divination, it would be okay (and not WP:UNDUE) to have a lot of text about Tarot in the cartomancy article. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
@RevelationDirect: yes I think this article should be merged so it goes away. The information about the practice, such as cultural, social and historical impact should go into Cartomancy article, the text about the decks their inventors and history should go into the Tarot article. AadaamS (talk) 05:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm wondering how much weight we should give to WP:COMMONNAME here. Now that I've read more, I've learned there are non-divination games played with the tarot and that other cards can be used for divination. In popular culture though, and indeed with most practicing psychics I've seen, tarot and cartomancy are interchangeable and the latter term is relatively obscure.
I suspect most readers would probably search for tarot but technically mean cartomancy, without realizing it. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Cartomancy is not the same as tarot reading. In a narrow sense, cartomancy is the divination using the standard playing card deck, in a more broad sense cartomancy includes any cards including the standard playing cards, tarot decks, and oracle decks. I don't see the reason for mergingSmiloid (talk) 09:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
I would though second a motion to re-name article as "Tarot reading" for simplicity. The article on the games was recently changed from Tarot, tarock and tarocchi games to Tarot card games for similar reasons. Smiloid (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Dumb ass Contributor (me) says[edit]

oops. never mind.

Mike Sosteric PhD 15:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Removing "single source" tag[edit]

Can we remove the single source tag at the top of this article? There are more sources included now.

Mike Sosteric PhD 15:32, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

name change[edit]

Considering there are articles for Major Arcana and Minor Arcana, both only relevant within the context of this articles' subject, we could change the name to 'Tarot Arcana'. Incidentally, Arcane redirects to the 'Western esotericism' article, so it is not an unheard term.Ernobe (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The term "tarot arcana" is not commonly used for tarot reading or occult tarot. What sources are using "tarot arcana?" I've switched the name back to "occult tarot" because I know it to be used by writers on the subject. I do prefer perhaps "tarot reading" but I cannot change it for some reason.Smiloid (talk)
I was able to change it back to "tarot readings"Smiloid (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The terms Major Arcana and Minor Arcana are not used? And do these terms refer to anything other than the Major Arcana and the Minor Arcana of Tarot, according to the same sources? Is it the purpose of the article to provide us with a manual of Tarot reading or divination? If the answer to these questions is no, an unbiased, objective presentation of the facts concerning this subject is to name the article Tarot Arcana, and change the introduction to reflect this, the way I had done it. Ernobe (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)