Talk:Major Arcana

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Board and table games (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 

Presentation of Cards and NPOV[edit]

that particular list of tarot major arcana includes distortions by bohemians, Romans, Christians, The Golden Dawn, and New Age.Prometheuspan 01:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This represents an assertion bereft of knowledge of the facts regarding the modern development of Occult Tarot (1890s-today). We should be referencing sources like Decker and Dummett's "History of Occult Tarot: 1870-1970", Duckworth Press, 2002. "Distortions" is a loaded word. It would be better to speak of the crafting of an occult tool out of a gaming deck.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is the most common version of the Arcana, no, it isn't the most accurate, not by a long shot.Prometheuspan 01:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, these are loaded terms of evaluation. We should be selecting the most popular and well-known OCCULT deck or decks (these being the Smith-Waite or 'Rider-Waite' cards or the Harris-Crowley 'Thoth' deck or possibly a Golden Dawn or BOTA deck; probably sustainable references will be from the Kaplan variety published by his US Games and detailed in his encyclopedias at least). The rest of the decks are less important to the general occultist and moreso with readers. These classes should be distinguished on other pages, and the most popular sustainable card sequence identified so as to produce the list on this page, or some quasi-alternative as may be found in such text as Kaplan.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

How can we ameliorate this by including other points of view, and perhaps, a version history?Prometheuspan 01:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The ideal is admirable, but we should not strictly attempt to include all points of view, only those of relevance and notability. Where the phrase 'Major Arcana' applies is not to the card game from which the cards arrive (in which they are called 'Trumps'), but in OCCULT Tarot, which has a developmental history since the late 1800s. We should discuss this history and acknowledge it in the exposition of the cards, as well as select the major decks of relevance to that history (notably one of a number such as the Majors by Wirth (artist), Smith (artist), or Harris (artist).-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

What these articles need[edit]

Here's a good example of an edit I did for the Antoine Court de Gébelin article "An essay by The Comte de Mellet included in Court de Gebelin's Monde primitif is responsible for the mystical connection of the Tarot's Major Arcana with the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet." What this does is establish how tarot cards became associated with Kabbalah. I think something similar should be done regarding alchemy and astrology and other associations. How did these associations came about? It may be a tradition but who started the tradition? Also, how did the terms "Major Arcana" and "Minor Arcana" originate. These are facts we should include in our articles.Smiloid 08:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a good start, but the article will need secondary or tertiary sourcing to substantiate the encyclopedic character of Wikipedia, lest it become effaced by cite challenges. Building them in to the analysis of the development of Major Arcana imagery would be important to the sustainability of any articles on them. Not many have done this kind of analysis, however, so you're either stuck with what has been done (diversified survey of card meanings on the order of Butler or O'Neill or others) or need to find some fairly novel source who adequately details the imagery symbolism as it develops through time and becomes associated with occult ideas. Original research won't last in Wikipedia, though it may be beautiful to behold.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, i would respectfully suggest that Joseph Campbell has little authority in the area of either Tarot or of occult symbolism, though he did author one essay on Tarot Major Arcana graphic symbolism and its relation to myth. His extreme and syncretic perspective once had favour but should be placed on a plateau with numerous other symbolism expositions where they are discernable. There are few sources with standing in this region of knowledge, but a few that come to mind include Dummett, Butler, O'Neill, and even Kaplan. If we focus on form rather than meaning that will be initially helpful in arriving at consensus, especially if we are able to restrict to specific and most popular decks for selection (it will minimize the naming and sequence variation).-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Robert M. Place[edit]

Paul Christian is the originator of the phrase "Major Arcana" Place is at least one author I've read to mention this fact. I'm new to some of the Wikipedia syntax on footnotes etc. I am attempting to use his book as a source for that information.Smiloid (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

These Articles Are Awful[edit]

They tend toward nonsense and are totally unencyclopedic. As interested as I am in Tarot, Wikipedia is not the place for New Age babble. A trump is not "a reminder to be true to ourselves," etc. etc. Please communicate only the essential, preferably historical fact. It is acceptable to say, "Arthur Edward Waite identified the card with ---(Key to the Tarot, 19--), while others state, etc.' It is entirely unacceptable to say 'The card means you will have a baby, etc.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.21.106.137 (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The article on The Fool is a serviceable template that interested editors may follow. 173.21.106.137 (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Trivia / Pop Culture Section[edit]

I'd like to remove this section entirely; it seems comparable to creating a similar section on the paganism article, which would be entirely out of place. It's not a specific event or group being referenced 'in pop culture'; the references here give nearly no context or useful information regarding the usage of the major arcana in the relevant works. Some examples (Shin Megami Tensei series, for instance) could be re-introduced in a similar section, but would need to be fleshed out to have any meaning in the context of this article. Thoughts before I make a change? Jacotto (talk) 05:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm adding the word "erroneous" back in in the context of attributions of the tarot to gypsies. Nobody believes that is true anymore, and they haven't for some time. That was pure fantasy on the part of the tarot patriarchs (See Dummett, 1980; Decker and Dummett, 2002). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talkcontribs) 12:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
added back all the material mistakenly removed as original research. There is no original research here, its all cited properly. In fact I'l be adding further citations later today in all places identified as "citation required"Mike Sosteric PhD 14:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello again. I notice you still havent got signing working. Did you see my last post to your talk page about this problem? You really do need to attend to this as it can get you banned. Also when you add something on the talk page pelase make sure you put it in the appropriate section, or make a new section. Your most recent comments arent about trivia/pop culture but are in a section so named. Also I'd liek to eocourage you to [put page numbvers in your citations as otherwise they are hard to verify. Morgan Leigh | Talk 04:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)