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

The last two paragraphs need to be changed so they're no longer in the imperative, NPOV'ed, and preferably cited. While I could do the first two, I'm hoping that someone who has access to the sources would be able to do a better job, so I've added the cleanup-tone template. Chuck 20:09, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I did a little editing. I hope it helps clear up the tone of the article. --Matrona 21:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation[edit]

Following the added link to, the text on looked rather familiar. confirms that the text has been around since 2004, and it was just pasted into the article in one go earlier this year, by a user who has made no other edits. I've gone through and removed the offending paragraphs. --McGeddon 18:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved from my user page[edit]

Hello. "There is no scientific evidence that individuals can divine future events." just seemed like a redundant statement, because there's nothing (that I can see) in the article that claims divination to produce verifiable results. If there were any sentences that implied the process produced accurate predictions, we should rewrite them to be neutral. --McGeddon (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The implication is that it works. There has to be a bold statement that it doesn't, just for the poor soul who might think that because it's on Wikipedia, it must be true. Those that believe in this stuff, won't care what we right. The statement is a throwaway, because typical of trying to prove a negative, I can't find any reliable source that has studied this hooey. But I haven't stopped looking. Anyways, I'm willing to lengthen the statement, clean it up, improve it, but I'm strongly opposed to deleting it. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure the implication is there - we're explaining tasseography clearly in terms of being "divination or fortune-telling", we're not carelessly saying at any point that "tasseography is a method of perceiving future events". It seems on the same level as saying that a fairy is a "mythological or legendary creature" - we don't need to add "there is no scientific evidence that mythological creatures exist" to the lead. --McGeddon (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
A bypassers note: the article on Fairy actually tells us that they are mythological beings or legendary creatures. A pattern maybe? ... said: Rursus (mbork³) 16:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
This article reads like someone is subtly saying tasseography is legitimate. There is not one word mentioning the lack of proof that it works, and the statement directly saying so was deleted. This article desperately needs acceptable references as well as removal of the excessive number of weasel word statements. JascalX (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no scientific proof that literary criticism works but we don't feel a need to write that in the opening of the article. Tasseography doesn't actually make any scientific claims so I can't see how sciences opinion of it is any more relevant than its opinion of science (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yahoo news article?[edit]

Should we delete this? It seems like an attempt to provide some "proof" for tasseography, which is not the goal here. --MochaSwirl (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)