Talk:Tarot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Tarot:
  • Copy-edit text for proper spelling, grammar, usage, tone, style, and voice. See How to copy-edit.
  • Wikify terms that need it. Terms usually only need to be linked once.
  • Maintain a neutral point of view and abide by WP:FRINGE throughout the text.
  • Verify facts and claims that are likely to be disputed. Note references for content you contribute. See Citing sources.
Priority 2

Talk pages for Tarot at Wikipedia[edit]

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

Origin[edit]

Didn't the tarot cards originate in Ancient Egypt? Galaxywarrior (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope. That was a story invented by Antoine Court de Gebelin before Egyptian hieroglyphs were deciphered, and even before the Rosetta stone was found. The basis of his claim was pretty much 'no one at this time knows much about Egypt, and I think Tarot sounds like Egyptian even though I know nothing about the language.' Ian.thomson (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Simply considering the large number of cards, there nevertheless seems to be a connection to the Lewis chessmen, indicating an earlier origin, going back to the Norsemen of 1200 AD. If there is any kind of divinatory use to the pieces (as no chessboard was found), it appears that one probably predates the other. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

History[edit]

I think the first four paragraphs in the history section should be erased, because they are a deep description of the playing cards history, not particularly about tarots: it should be better put in the article on playing cards. I would substitue them with a sentence about the fact tarots originally used the italian suits. Lele giannoni (talk) 15:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been a while since I've logged on here. It does seem that many of the paragraphs are beyond the scope of TarotSmiloid (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

There is a claim extant that the 1735 work "The Square of Sevens" is, in fact, a literary hoax: [[1]] Quadibloc (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

A Novel[edit]

Walter Satterthwait's detective novel The Hanged Man bears the name of a major arcanum, and the chapter titles are the names of the other major arcana (out of order), with line drawings of the cards decorating the heads of the chapters. J S Ayer (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The plot revolves around the disappearance of a late fifteenth-century tarot card. J S Ayer (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Popular culture Tarot decks[edit]

The existence of these decks based on Asterix, Mickey Mouse, and Droopy characters is verifiable. The "Tarock" section in Stuart Kaplan's "Encyclopedia of Tarot vol II" has them illustrated. A simple Google images search will also yield plenty of sources documenting their existenceSmiloid (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, A book that calls itself an encyclopedia showing examples of odd modern tarot facings with no context in a gallery of images doesn't give "historical importance", and the other sources you gave come nowhere close to being reliable sources, not that they show historical importance either. You need reliable sources to back up what your saying, otherwise it doesn't belong in the article. This is as trivial as content can get, and has no place on this article. - Aoidh (talk) 21:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I've made a comment on the Tarot talk page. You have not made a case as to why reference to those cartoon tarot decks are any more trivial than the Marvel comics are any of the other ones. My case is that they are historically important because they are the FIRST of their kind. The Tarot game decks were the first ones to use cartoon/comics as a theme and should therefore be included. They are more important for that reason than the Marvel comics tarots. This section has a world wide view problem because decks made in Asia are also not represented. Smiloid (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
You don't have the repeat the same comment on my talk page, your talk page, and the article talk page. I'm not talking about any Marvel comics, that's at best a red herring and irrelevant. You're claiming they are historically significant; show that with reliable sources, not personal reasoning based on vague claims and invalid comparisons to other irrelevant content. I'm not making a case for or against any Marvel comics tarot cards, and neither are you. Content needs to stand on its own merits, not added simply because "other poor content is already here". If that's the rationale for adding them, that seems to reinforce that this content truly doesn't belong on the article. You're saying that the content is historically important, if that's the case there shouldn't be any problem finding reliable sources that clearly show this importance, but none of the sources you provided do this. - Aoidh (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Aren't ALL the decks mentioned in the section "trivial?" Are you saying there shouldn't be a pop culture section. Maybe you are right. I've mixed feeling myself about having this section in the first place. If you wish to delete it, It might even be best. However if the section is to stay, there should be French game cartoon decks along with some Asian ones. This section is too Western centric considering all the tarots published in Asia with pop culture themes.Smiloid (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted the entire section as none of the decks would satisfy the criteria for inclusion.Smiloid (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

REPENT  !!!!![edit]

DISCLAIM TAROT AND ACCEPT JESUS CHRIST AS YOUR TRUE LORD AND SAVIOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The traditional imagery of the tarot is derived from medieval Christianity and the cards were originally used for a trick taking game similar to Rook Smiloid (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Strength / Justice ordering[edit]

some of the entries seem incongruent to me regarding the "classical" value of trumps Justice and Strength.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarot identifies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarot_of_Marseilles as the "standard" and "most popular" material (1889, but following the Conver deck of 1760) and some "early decks" with undocumented trump orders.

The Marseille deck has Justice = 8, Strength = 11

The main article identifies (under "Occult tarot decks") Justice in the 11th ordinal position, strength in the 8th, but goes on (under "Rider-Waite-Smith deck") to say that this (RWS) deck swaps the classical ordering of Justice and Strength.

While https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Arcana identifies the "default" ordering of Justice as 11.

It seems that, somewhere, there should be mention of which is actually the classical ordering and which is a "swapping" of that order: either the Marseille deck is a swap (and therefore is not itself the standard, in which case I think this swapping should be mentioned in the Marseille entry) or the RWS deck follows the classical standard while others (CHT) swap Justice and Strength.

Sjohnson.sc (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC) L. Scott Johnson