Talk:The Fool (tarot card)

message: See also the central Talk page for all the Major Arcana at Talk:Major_Arcana. This can be the discussion nexus for overall occult Trump description and analysis. Thanks for all your fine work!-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed the "Examples" section since it was entirely Original Research which Wikipedia does not allow. I left the "mythopoeteic interpretation" section because that may have come from a reputable source but it seems to be something based on personal interpretation like the "Examples" section. - DNewhall
The interpretation sections of all cards should be rewritten. Intrepretation is always someone 's interpretation, and the text should reflect this fact. One should not write Fool is the one that takes the fateful step into a new world but one should write According to N.N., fool is the one that takes... or There is a consensus among most card readers that fool is the one that takes... Authorities sometimes disagree with each other on card interpretations, and the reader should be told of the status of the interpretation. Attributing interpretations to some authorities without mentioning the authorities by name is simply dishonest.
If one attributes the interpretations to schools of thought such as kabbalistic or mythopoetic, then there should be pages describing those schools (doctrine, prevalence and significant people of the school.)
Punainen Nörtti
Why use the illustration from Marseille Tarots and not one that match the description, like Rider-Waite?
I agree with who says the mythopoetic is too personal and subjective, and I think in this case we should better choose the more "universal" aspects of the card and not try to attach that much to the opinions of authorities about interpretation neither the personal comparisons. There are things that are consensus, for example, the fool must never be putten as a repressed person...but a lightfull one...Dont you think it?
I´ve written some keywords on the description and mixed the "mythopoetic" with interpretation topic, after turning the mythopoetic more "impersonal" and more as a posible interpretation... not as the obrigatory right one. - Don Leon Cavalero
: Yes, consensus interpretation should be given whenever possible, but there are real disagreements that the reader of the articles should be made aware of. For example the standard way to see the devil as an oppressor and a master of lies versus the Crowley interpretation of the devil as a liberating life force. The fool seems to be unproblematic without such contradictory interpretations, though.Punainen Nörtti 18:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordination 

message: The article is just personal opinions from occult enthusiasts about the nature and meaning of a particular tarot card. No peer reviewed books or journal articles are cited. No references or footnotes are given. When a new statement is added, the source needs to be cited, and the source needs to be verifiable, and reliable.
The card in question has a history of over 500 years in European card games in which it is used as powerful wild trump card, to which no points are given in the game, or excuses the player from following suit (see Tarocchi). It is also no as the Excuse, L'excuse, etc. The article is unbalanced in that it only features the recent uses of the card for divination. This makes the article biased due to its recentism. Since the article ignores use of the card for game play in Europe and other parts of the world, it offers an anglo-american perspective that raises NPOV issues. There are academic sources and sources from international organizations discussing the history and evolution of the Fool card as well as its use in games. These need to be utilized. - Parsa 05:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverifiable and unbalanced content 

message: Are the things in the Visconti-Sforza tarots fools hair really feathers? Could they be ears of barley or rye instead? Or some other form of hay or cereal? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Visconti Fools hair 

message: I really had to add the Original Research template to the Symbolism section. It's really just tarot-cruft. I could put anything in there, and who would say it's any better or worse than what's there? Secondary or tertiary sources need to be cited. They should not be primary sources (except as very strictly outlined in the WP:NOR article). If you can find someone like a professor who wrote a verifiable and reliable academic paper or book on occult tarot symbolism, then this can be cited. I was tempted to add the Fanpov template, since it really seems to be that as well. If primary sources are cited, then the Primary sources template will go on. - Parsa (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruft - Template added to Symbolism Section 

message: There really havn't been any changes in the article, and in fact citation links are dead, and more popular cruft has been added. A lot of cleanup needs to be done to make the article reliable and verifiable. — ★Parsa (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ten years on and the article continues to be full of errors and conflates the use of the the Mountebank or Fool in Tarot card games with its totally unrelated role in occult practice. Bermicourt (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  History and popular culture templates 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Gstieß and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 9#Gstieß until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  CycloneYoris talk! 08:32, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Gstieß" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :🃠 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#🃠 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  CycloneYoris talk! 10:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "🃠" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: moved to "tarot" ( 'small t' ). Coming to this discussion as a naive neutral editor, I am struck by how civil it has been, where the norm among games and arcana discussions is definitely more combative! I commend all discussion participants for maintaining this civility. 
As for the close, I am forced to render a decision in some fashion, as the discussion has already been relisted twice, in a space which has suffered from numerous moves back and forth and inconsistent conventions throughout. It is our job as Wikipedians to generate consensus and decisively execute that consensus. I feel it would be a tragedy in that background to call this "no-con" as we have clearly a long history in this article space of no reigning convention (e.g. past discussions on Talk:The_Magician_(tarot_card)#Naming_ConventionsTalk:The Magician (Tarot card) and previous moves/redirects for Death, The Hanged Man, and The Chariot). 
As to the numbers: I count 5 supporters of 'small t' tarot, and 3 opposers in favor of 'large T' Tarot. But of course, this is WP:NOTAVOTEnot a vote. As to the strength and persuasiveness of arguments, it appears ngrams are split, with 'small t' and 'large T' having roughly the same circulation and usage. Most in-universe books (which are typically governed by publisher style guides) default to the 'small t'. Other WP:RSRSes (e.g. The Guardian, NYT) appear to use the 'small t' most often. MOS:GAMECAPS would have us default to the 'small t' if viewing the noun as a game system rather than a belief. These arguments appeared to be the most convincing to discussion participants assembled here. On the other hand, we have practitioners who most often prefer the 'large T' when left to their own devices, and when viewing the subject as a proper noun. These arguments appear less convincing to discussion participants. 
As to WP:PAGs, WP:COMMONNAME appears indecisive in this instance per previous, and WP:CONSISTENCY is equally useless given widespread interchangeability here on wiki and in the sources. MOS, thus, reigns as the only decisive guideline available here. Incorporating all these aspects, the 'small t' "tarot" is the version most supported by a consensus of editors, arguments, and policy. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 11:35, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 11 August 2022