Talk:Tarot/Archive 2

message: Hi I am new to editing this article. It seems to me that there is an ongoing flamefest for some reason about this article, involving a number of editors who obviously have barrows to push (which is quite fine, wikipedia would not be a useful source of info if people were not motivated to edit it). The article itself is littered with fact tags etc which make it hard to read. I've just archived all the copious talk, and I am hoping that we can clean this article up so it is useful. I'd suggest a 'controversy' or 'theories of origin' or similar sections in the article if necessary to limit rv wars etc., hopefully we can isolate the parts of the article that are noncontroversial so that at least some of it is useful to the disinterested reader. --Surturz 03:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your changes, Surturz.  I'm sure they will evolve, but I feel your changes fixed many of the POV and reference issues raised by others and goes a long way to resolving things and "pushing the reset button."--P Todd 17:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for reinstating my changes. The article still needs a lot of improvement, but as long as each new version is better than the previous one, we'll get there. --Surturz 23:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Leaf

message: Is there anyone today disputing the fact that game playing is the original purpose of tarot? All the external sources to which this article links acknowledges this fact. If there is a NPOV over origins, I think it needed to be said that not only CAN they be used for gaming they still ARE sometimes used for such a purpose. I am not only referring to the traditional trick taking games of Europe in this case, but also of recently designed games such as Tarot Auction or those Looney Lab games which use Icehouse pieces with the tarot decksSmiloid 00:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The word "can" does not dispute that they are used as playing cards - it confirms it. I think it is a question of grammar, not of fact. "Can" implies that it does happen, "Could" implies that it does not happen, "Are" implies only that thing happens. I believe "can" is the correct word to use. The sentence "Tarot cards are used as playing cards." is not completely correct because there are other uses (e.g. divination) --Surturz 01:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not sure why you feel that using the word "can" somehow implies that the game or Tarot is not played, particularly since the italicised text preceding the article gives links to those games. If you prefer to reword the phrase to use the word "are", then go ahead, but you will need to refer to the divinatory use for them as well for completeness. --Surturz 01:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: They CAN be used as playing cards?

message: What does everyone think of making the main Tarot article only address the history and designs of the Tarot cards, and then having a separate article about how they are used for divination, in addition to the extant Tarot game articles? --Surturz 01:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I support that, as I've said before. We can make a balanced general article. As an encyclopedia article, it should be informative and educational. It would be good to tell folks that have only heard about Tarot card as used for divination about the origins and use as a game. Conversely, someone that perhaps is reading from Europe, would learn more about the esoteric uses of Tarot cards. We need to remember, however, that whether the information is about the cards, the games, divination, iconography, or whatever, we must first find a verifiable and reliable secondary source. Generally this is from some reputable academic book, article, thesis, etc that has source material itself. If it has an extensive index, bibliography, reading list, footnotes, etc, it is probably academic in nature. If it's just someone's opinions or views, it is probably a poor source. In a sense, it's like you are writing a college research paper. Have your information or quotation cards or notes, and the source cited. Also have a card or note with the source's bibliographic information. - Parsa 02:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done. I've moved the stuff about fortune telling using tarot cards to a new article called Tarot reading. Let's keep this article about the evolution and design of the cards themselves. --Surturz 07:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Multi-article proposal

message: "The tarot is a set of cards featuring 21 trump cards and a special card called "The Fool", in addition to the usual suit (face and pip) cards found in ordinary playing cards. Tarot cards are used throughout much of Europe to play Tarot card games[1].
In English speaking countries, where the games are largely unknown, Tarot cards came to be utilized primarily for divinatory purposes[1]."
The first paragraph is PERFECT!!!! Complete neutrality. The only problem is the second paragraph. This state of affairs as it pertains to tarot is not exclusive to English speaking countries. It is also the case in Spanish speaking ones for example. This is a BIG improvement, though. Bravo! Smiloid 07:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is ALMOST perfect!!

message: The 'Psychological' section keeps disappearing. Which is annoying as I am trying to add to it by mentioning Dr Leary's developmental take on the trump cards.
Pendodecahedron 12:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It hasn't disappeared, it's been moved to Tarot reading. Sorry for the inconvenience --Surturz 00:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Developmental psychological aspect of the Tarot trumps 

message: The reason I changed the header for the game section to Using Tarot cards to play games was due to confusion that can arise with the use of the word "gaming". In English speaking countries, the word gaming implies legal gambling. In fact it says so right in the intro section of the gambling article. See reference 1 in that article for a U.K. definition. We use gaming in the U.S. in the same way. The gambling on Indian reservation land is called "gaming". I didn't want to cause confusion for readers—making them think tarot cards were used for gambling. I think it is more clear the way I worded it (or something similar). - Parsa 17:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.   How about "Card Games"?   I'm trying to keep the English parallel.--P Todd 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaming 

message: Now that Tarot reading has been broken out into a separate article, we need to clean up the "Critics" section and move items over to the appropriate relevant sub-article.--P Todd 22:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but I would look for books and articles in which people are critical for whatever reason, not just general statements. That's how all the weasel sentences crept in. Religious and anti-occult groups will have books and tracts out no doubt. I know of some sourced stuff I can post in that section of the new article as well. To my mind, sections on critcism and trivia are of lesser encyclopedic importance when compared to factual and historical information. - Parsa 01:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've deleted the section, as I feel that it adds no value to the article. It could be reinstated if the debate over Tarot cards had any merit, or was interesting historically. If there were scientific experiments that involved Tarot cards, perhaps they might be worth mentioning. If somewhere they tried to ban Tarot decks, it might be worth including. However, the simple fact that some people love Tarot and some people hate Tarot is not worthy of inclusion - the same could be said about anything. --Surturz 01:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Critics" section clean-up needed 

message: User:Mystie010--Please put all links related to the interpretation of tarot cards on the Tarot reading page now that we have one.   We are trying very hard to keep this page focused on the origin of tarot cards to avoid the bias wars we had prior.  Please review the archives to see what we will get into again if you continue to persist to re-add your link.--P Todd 21:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to sites related to tarot card interp. 

message: The article implies that Kaballah and Tarot weren't related until the 19th cent. occult movement. I assume that's a reference to the Golden Dawn. Or Papus. But that's more of an assumption than anything. The cards first appeared, albeit in a somewhat different format, at the same time and in the same place as a flowering of non-Jewish interest in Kaballah. 
I raise this here because 1) I'm not sure how to correct the article, 2) I'm a newbie and would rather not do harm in an attempt to do good, and 3) I'd like to see if anyone else has strong opinions. Adistius 00:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "1 to 1 correspondence" is one interpretation, but a poor one. Parallels between the Tarot and the Tree of Life have been drawn (Eliphas Levy?), but they do not parallel other components of the Qaballah, such as the texts on Gematria. While many neo-pagans have adopted and adapted the Tarot, I seriously doubt any kind of pagan origins (although I'd love to see evidence for such). John Elder 09:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: So YOU say, buddy. Can you please give us some proof that the Italians DIDN'T have any knowledge of tarot symbolism? And what symbolism! Empresses, chariots, the sun... the moon. A tower. All of it stuff with which Italians would have been completely and totally unfamiliar, huh? 151.96.0.8 13:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: A "world genocide spree". Now THAT's funny! Can you please give us more details about this "world genocide spree"? 151.96.0.8 13:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "Expert"? Based on what? All you've done so far is bring up a bunch of nameless pagans, admitted that most of your evidence would have been burnt, and insist that italians, who were among the most cultured people at the time would have been unable to understand Tarot symbolism even though most of it consisted of objects thay would have been throughly familiar with. 151.96.0.8 13:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kaballah and Tarot 

message: A while ago I wrote the tarot article for the German WP (:de:Tarot) but I have barely touched this one. Partially that is because this one is, in my opinion, a bit of a mess. Then again, my idea what a good article would be might differ significantly from what others here think, and hence I want to put up these points for debate first.  
* Historical stuff is spread through almost all headings of the text, but IMO it would be better to have it in one place. Also, the history of the cards could and probably should be kept somewhat more seperate from the use of the cards, at least until the rise of explicitly esoteric decks. Actually, a text on the history of the cards themselfes might very well be put into a seperate article; especially since large parts of that would also be relevant to tarot (game).
Prometheuspan 22:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, the article couldn't even begin to give complete information there, but I think I did a decent job on de with providing the readers with an idea of that matter. Anybody who reads some German is most welcome to comment on whether it would be a good idea to incorporate some things from the German article. -- AlexR 21:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A separate history section would be welcome, as would some additions to the references. Would a very great deal of information have to be suppressed? A report on interpretation would not be the same as a personal essay on the "right" methods, of course. -Yes? -Wetman 11:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Lots of work to do

message: There are several more articles dealing with Tarot, see :Category:Tarot; many of them in need of some work, too. 
Particularly, there are articles on all of the majors (:Category:Tarot card) which are partly one-line stubs, and partly what seems to be copies from the Waite-book; the latter of course being highly problematic because well, they don't bother to tell that this is one specific interpretation of one specific deck. That means there is a lot of work to do there, too. -- AlexR 21:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The other tarot articles

message: This is patent Status Quo Christian Revisionist history.
As a pagan i find it insulting to my intelligence that this is what
Wikipedia has come up with. As a Wikipedian, I would have thought at
the very least somebody would think to include the "minority" opinion.
Prometheuspan 01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wHoStory? 

message: Smiloid 09:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tarot(divination) 

message: Some of the individual card pages declare Hebrew letter associations, which in my opinion are open to interpretation (some start with Magician=Aleph, others Magician=Beth, I support the former and can make a logical case for it). I think the Tarot article should expand on this subject and its origins. Maybe there is place for a heading for Associations under Origin and history? It can also list the Astrological associations which were made. Aeclectic Tarot thread  --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. 15:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hebrew letter associations 

message: Smiloid 21:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, kindly put new topics on the bottom of pages, and second, stop moving the page around like a maniac, you have no right to move it at all, since the page as it was already contained a disambig. And certainly you can't move it around from title to title just because you can't make up your mind to anything except being a PITA. Such things are discussed here in the Wikipedia first, until a consens is reached, even if technically crusaders can do what they want, that does not make it legit. -- AlexR 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the name change?" 

message: OK, Alex, Let us discuss. I assume you put the link to the Tarot Wiktionary on the disambiguation page. Did you read the definition? "Tarot 1. A card game played in various different variations 2. Any of the 78 cards used in fortune telling." Notice it gives the card game definition first and the fortune telling definition second? I am not being capricious with the page movements.   It is highly disengenious to define a game in terms of extra ludic activities. This is why  definition definesit as a game first. I do not understand why you insist upon a definition of "Tarot" which many feel is culturally biased and dated.Smiloid 06:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tarot Wiktionary

message: Why the undue focus on the Death Trump? To me this reeks of sensationalism. This is the trump reported to be left behind by snipers and serial killers. I have the Rider Waite Smith deck. The yellow box shows the Magician, so wouldn't this card be more representative of Tarot decks than Death? I have a substantial tarot deck collection and I don't recall the Death Trump being prominently featured on the box on any of them, It's usually the Fool or the "Magician"Smiloid 07:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trump XIII Death

message: I concede I may have overused the disambiguation feature as it would be convenient for most users to be directed here instead of disambiguation pages. For purposes of practicality I will leave this alone. However for NPOV purposes, I still maintain the article should be renamed as "Tarot Reading" as it is the primary focus of the article.Smiloid
:Fine, and now go crusade elsewhere. And stop addressing me personally, I am hardly the only person who thinks that your actions somehow were not appropriate. Also, learn how to format pages and how to sign your entries, if you ever want to be taken seriously here. Newbies who fill talkpages with their rants and move pages around till each and every link is broken just piss off about everybody here. And I don't care how many quotes you find (or make up), there are lots more about the predominant use in English, which is not the card game. Which is exactly what the survey you quote shows, but I don't think that you give a bloody damn about facts, nor about Wikipedia policy; otherwise, you would have spared us your moving spree. -- AlexR 15:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: disambiguation

message: You and I agree, that this is the common use in the anglophone world. That was my last edit. It is counter-productive for you to erase material on which you and I both agree!Smiloid
:If you are refering to your edit in the disambiguation link - first, they are not there to discuss things, they are just there to refer people to other topics which they might have been looking for under this title, hence your edit just did not belong there. Second, yes, well, obviously you disagree, but is that noteworthy and relevant enough to go anywhere into this article? I doubt it. -- AlexR 03:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is YOUR fact, Alex

message: You win, Alex. Enjoy your biased and outdated definitions.Smiloid 06:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tarot should be nuttin' but new age woo!

message: For clarifications Alex, you are correct in your criticisms of my attempt to redirect without discussions.
For this I apologize for any disruptions this may have caused.
Your point that my comments in the disambig paragraph may have gone beyond such a paragraph's purpose does not escape me.
However your denial that dissent exists concerning the popular conception of "Tarot" I must say is wrong.
Tarot trick taking games have attained a small cult following in the USA and in other countries.
In the 21st century where an American may play French Tarot with someone in China, such cartomantic hedgemony concerning Tarot is showing its age.
Your desire to maintain this existing hedgemony is the one point I must disagree.Smiloid
:If I would indeed claim that there was only one use of the word "Tarot" in the English speaking world, I would have long removed the disambiguation. Since I a) did even before you turned up consider it very likely that some English-speaking people would play the card game, and b) many people who use the tarot for divination (in a very wide sense) are also aware of the card game, I would however have inserted such a disambig if it had not already existed. What you claim, though, through your actions, is that the game is as well-known and as-often assiciated with the word as is the use for divination, which is simply not true. If you and a few friends disagree with that, or rather think it should not be so, that is hardly enough reason to change the article. Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Hence sticking to the present predominant use and reverting "but it should be so!" edits does not mean I deny that dissent exist -- if I ever had, which was not the case, you would have made it very clear that it does. Question however is, is that relevant enough -- relevant in general use, that is, not your personal preferences. It obviously is not relevant enough to make Tarot a disambig, but relevant enough to have a disambig on top of the page. Your rants of "cartomanic hegemony" and "occultism" will, I may add, hardly do those who want to promote the term as description of the card game any good. Crusaders are rarely welcome, and that is because they may have a point, but nobody bothers to look for it if they behave like a PITA, which is precisely what you did. And your demonstrably false claims regarding my opinion don't really show that you got the point, either. So how about getting a clue about both manners and Wikipedia, and when you have those, you are welcome to come back and do some good work. But not until then. -- AlexR 12:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Btw While I am still here

message: There has been a substantial increase in the number of persons over the years, even in the Anglo-American world, who regard "tarot" as primarily a competitive game. To define "tarot" as mainly an occult or divination vehicle is a biased usage. See "word ownership" and "Anglo-American" biases in Wiki's NPOV sections.
Smiloid 23:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that one again -- just because some people in the English speaking world are now playing the card game, we hardly have to move the article. You might check the rules about disambiguation before digging out that nonsense again. See above for dealing with that nonsense. -- AlexR 13:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am escalating this - went to WP:3O already, because this time I will not bother to discuss exactly the same thing again as a few weeks ago (and I don't think the facts have changed since then, either). I am perfectly willing to go all the way up to arbitration. Talking with you is onviously a waste of time. -- AlexR 21:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV title

message: This article was listed on Wikipedia:Third_opinion. It seems the current dispute arises over the use of an NPOV tag, however, I must confess that even after a careful reading of the talk page, history and disambiguation page I can't quite discern what the POV being pushed is supposed to be. Smiloid, you seem to have accepted that the most common use of the term in the Anglophone world relates to the using of the cards in divination so I cannot see why you would object to this page being the main page. The policy of word ownership is clearly intended to avoid disputes over the precise, "real", definition of words and to allow for other definitions to be given voice. The disambiguation section at the top clearly fulfills this requirement. As to the Anglo American bias, I think this particular example falls somewhat outside the scope of what that policy was supposed to rectify and, in any case, I'm not aware of any significant differences in what the word "tarot" signifies within the English speaking world. 
I think it would be best if the NPOV tag remained off for the time being until Smiloid can make clear what POV it is he is objecting to. In addition, I've noticed a lot of heated, sometimes personal remarks being made in the various talk pages so I think it might be best if both editors take a step back and a deep breath before continuing the debate. Daduzi 22:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have any objections to separating the history out into a separate article (providing there's enough information to warrant a separate article). Indeed, given the fact that Tarot usage diverged relatively late in the history of the cards a separate history article would make a lot of sense. I would stress, though, that the divination article should remain the main article, on the basis that it is a reasonable assumption that most users would expect an article on the use of Tarot cards in divination upon pressing "Go". Daduzi 01:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think such a drastic division is necessary, as the article is not of overly great length. I'd also stress that anything that would be of interest to somebody searching for information about the use of Tarot in divination should remain on this page, and that includes more than just the divination and opposition sections. That being said I, personally, wouldn't see that much wrong with trimming down some of the sections you mentioned and separating them off into other articles (provided enough material can be found to warrant a separate article). This is just my personal view, however, and other editors may well feel differently. --Daduzi 10:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Opinion

message: While a growing number of people may be inclined to favor Smiloid's definintion, I think that the mainstream and popular definition for this phrase is in accordance with the current article. Daduzi made some excellent points above and the disambiguation notice at the top of the page is more than sufficient to remedy any confusion in what the readers are looking for. --Hetar 22:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3rd opinion by [[User:Hetar|Hetar]]

message: Perhaps you are correct to state that the gaming aspect of tarot is not sufficiently mainstream  to challenge currently popular definitions on Wikipedia. I'll even quote the Wikipedia founder himself for you "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." To re-direct based upon this subtle bias may perhaps be premature at this time. For other reasons, I still think that Tarot history and Tarot spreads or layouts should be in separate articles as they are, in fact, two different topics. For example, the rules of chess and the origins of chess are given in two distinct articles.  I am most interested in your replies.Smiloid 05:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have any objections to separating the history out into a separate article (providing there's enough information to warrant a separate article). Indeed, given the fact that Tarot usage diverged relatively late in the history of the cards a separate history article would make a lot of sense. I would stress, though, that the divination article should remain the main article, on the basis that it is a reasonable assumption that most users would expect an article on the use of Tarot cards in divination upon pressing "Go". Daduzi 01:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think such a drastic division is necessary, as the article is not of overly great length. I'd also stress that anything that would be of interest to somebody searching for information about the use of Tarot in divination should remain on this page, and that includes more than just the divination and opposition sections. That being said I, personally, wouldn't see that much wrong with trimming down some of the sections you mentioned and separating them off into other articles (provided enough material can be found to warrant a separate article). This is just my personal view, however, and other editors may well feel differently. --Daduzi 10:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: other issues besides biased definitions

message: Although I agree that the Tarot exhibits almost one-to-one correspondence with the Kabbalah, the "Symbolism" section completely contradicts the rest of the article in a tone that feels like it was lifted verbatim from a book on Tarot.
How should we go about correcting this? Andrew 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could just give a shot at editing it and other editors will quickly let you know if they don't think that it is an improvement.  Jkelly 00:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Symbolism" looks out of place... 

message: Regarding the recent edits, I've put up a citation notice for the claim that "in Asian countries such as Japan, however, the Tarot is often seen as a Christian artifact from the West", though an interesting fact it really needs sourcing, and I deleted the sentence regarding David Parlett's comments since, reading through the context of what he said, it seems more of a general historical comment than opposition to the use of Tarot in divination. Certainly I didn't get the impression that Parlett wants divination using Tarot banned or restricted. --Daduzi 10:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I presume you're referring to the page entitled "History of Egyptian Tarot Decks" http://www.spiritone.com/~filipas/Masquerade/Reviews/historye.html
This page is working for me. Try again.Smiloid 02:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm sorry the link didn't work for you, Alex

message: This section reminds me of Rorschach inkblot test What do Tarot cards offer, besides prettier pictures, that the inkblots don't? Also the idea of the "subconcious" and other Freudian notions are not universally maintained by psychologists today.Smiloid 06:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a practicing and licensed psychotherapist (Marriage and Family Therapist, not a Psychologist), I have used tarot cards to help patients reflect on archetypal themes when appropriate. I don't do it for everybody, and don't spend a lot of time with it. There are some group activities that I use to spark discussion and members getting to know each other more deeply. I realize that first person research (and testimony?) is not a WP sanctioned part of the article. I do not have any sources to cite, because I did not pick it up from a source. I also learned (the hard way) that this can be a poor idea with patients exhibiting psychotic symptoms unless the deck is carefully edited. Tarot cards offer more concrete images than inkblots. And it doesn't matter whether it's mainstream (what is mainstream?) or not. The article asserts that "some" use the cards. That is true. The Jung Institute in Los Angeles used to (and probably still does) sell a deck of "Soul Cards," which, while not Tarot cards, similarly invite deep responses with evocative imagery. John Elder 09:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Psychology?

message: Would you mind using the preview function for your edits in the future, instead of making a dozen edits which one has to go through one by one, or through the history? And don't add any more links unless they are really, really, really a must. We have far too many already. -- AlexR 06:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: @Smiloid

message: As a psychology major, I find the implications of that section to be quite dubious. Tarot is not used by mainstream therapists.Smiloid 23:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Dr. Art Rosengarten's website. He bills himself as a psychologist and psychotherapist and a diplomate of the American Psychotherapy Association, and uses tarot cards in his psychotherapy practice. But in any event, regardless of what your personal views are, I think the NPOV tag should be removed. --Aquarius Rising 23:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: And who exactly has claimed that tarot is widely used by what you call "mainstream therapists"? (Whatever that is supposed to be.) It is used by some, though, and not just esoteric nutcases, either. If you find that there are implications that are false (I didn't, but then I am not hell-bent against this article), correct them, and stop slapping POV-tags and similar into the article. -- AlexR 06:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I fixed it. I do think that mention of the "subconcious" warrants a link to Freud. If the use of Tarot cards in therapy is based upon theories which many find to be dated, as this article implies, we should mention there are many critics of Jung and Freud these days. As one who sat through the stridently, yet funny, anti-Freudian lectures of my Behaviorist prof, I should know, LOL. 
Note to Aquarius Rising, Dr. Rosengarten does not have a Wikipedia page. Do you think you might create one, at least a stub, perhaps?Smiloid 06:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ode to Freud

message: This theory, however, is not theologically consistent with mainstream Bible interpretation.
By whose interpretation? This is identical to saying, Some say that this is not... This sentence should be removed.  168.103.117.54 18:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole section is like that.  I added  to it in the hopes that someone can provide some sourcing for it.  Jkelly 21:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A source would be nice, but I can assure you the information is accurate, at least as far as the major denominations are concerned (I personally am a Lutheran who doesn't believe this, but I can tell you most Lutherans do, and apparantly so do Catholics (as attested to by the nun who gives me music lessons) and the Mormons that I know).
A good point! What is "mainstream Bible interpretation" anyway? Of course, the Bible says nothing specific about Tarot decks as they've yet to be invented. At the risk of becoming tedious, it perhaps should be emphasized that the Tarot is not inherently "occultic" despite its common use as an "insight" tool for the new age woos in our part of the world. The REAL Tarot, not the superstitious tarot to which this article refers, is in fact a classic card game quite suitable for family game night in Salt Lake City.Smiloid 07:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess my simple question is why is it important to bring such information to the attention of readers? Surely as an encyclopaedia it would be better to simply detail the different uses of Tarot and allow readers to decide themselves which is more authentic. Provided the article does not attempt to claim that divination is the more genuine use of Tarot I see no need to put forward an argument that the use of Tarot as playing cards is more genuine; why put forward an alternative view which is not an alternative to anything being expressed? --Daduzi talk 04:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading statement 

message: I think we should put the most known version of Marseilles cards on the article...Particularly, I just disliked those ones...Not only that, but why 2 chariot pictures? Come on...I´m about to edit it and take off those cards, waiting opinion of yours... P.S.: Already done it.
- Don Leon Cavalero
You mean there is a more well known version of the Marseilles deck than the one published by Grimaud? Smiloid 05:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Marseilles cards on the article 

message: I object to the addition of the Beltway Snipers bullet point in the section entitled "Storytelling and Art."  This observation is not relevant to this section because it is about actual events, not storytelling or art.  I considered moving it to a different section, but don't see a place it really fits in this article.  Is it really necessary to include it at all?  If so, it should be in a new or different section.  Massjit 17:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beltway Snipers are not "storytelling and art" 

message: The Symbolism section of the article begins with ... "The Tarot has a complex and rich symbolism with a long history. Such history is not impenetrable. Contrary to what many popular authors claim, its origins are not lost in the mists of time. In fact, much of the fog around the symbolism can be dispelled if one studies sources other than occultists with a vested interest in the occult interpretation of Tarot. We will do some dispelling further on; in the meantime, the most important thing to note is that modern, occult readings of the cards often have little to do with their meaning in their original context." This seems like pure original research, and also patronizing and talking down to the reader. And what's this line about doing some dispelling further on, and telling the reader that the most important thing to note is to be wary of the vested interests of occult authors writing about tarot? This should be changed at once, in my opinion. 24.18.35.120 00:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Feel free to edit it in any way you see fit. :) Sam 00:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was Do not move.  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbolism section 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
* Support Although critics of such a move have been correct in asserting that the "occult" or "divination" definitions are the more common than the game historian's primary definition in many countries, it would be more in keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV policies if neither definition is seen as preferred.Smiloid 01:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I would like to see some citations to back up the claim that Freemasons use tarot as a mnemonic device.--P Todd 01:19, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Freemasons and Tarot 

message: I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so forgive me if I make a faux pas.  The "Books on Tarot" section towards the end of the article is, I feel, speculative and non-factual.  Would it be possible to have citations for this section?  Here are the problems I have specifically:
"Whilst it is now traditional for a tarot deck to be accompanied by a handbook to the meaning of the cards, this practice was initiated by A E Waite in his Pictorial key to the Tarot, and Waite was the first to explicitly adopt a policy that no deck should be sold from new without an accompanying book, which was written into his contract with Rider. These books are known generically as Little White Books, or LWBs."  This paragraph doesn't differentiate between the little white booklets that come with decks and full-size books that are often sold with decks nowadays as kits.  Also, I do not believe that anyone knows what Waite's contract with Rider was and I would like to see a citation.
"Although it is generally believed the line drawings, signed "PCS" and the source of Colman-Smith's diminutive "Pixie", reflect the state of the printer's art in the early 20th Century, a brief study of the history of Information Graphics, particularly acid-etching and Victorian technical illustrations, strongly suggests that the Pictorial Key was designed to enable people to make themselves a deck, as it features full-size reproductions of every card, from trumps to pips, which can be easily traced and transferred onto cards in a similar manner to tattoo flash."  I feel this is pure conjecture.  I don't see any reason to believe that the cards are reproduced in the book for any other reason than as a reference for readers so they can follow along with the book's discussion of the cards' symbolism.
"Despite this, the first Waite clone, the Robin Woods Tarot, although bringing careful and well-planned colouration to Colman-Smith's line drawings as well as lightening the weight of the outlines themselves, was very controversial and the subject of protracted litigation in some countries. The matter of to what extent copyright was infringed is still the subject of some debate."  I feel this paragraph is completely non-factual.  The Robin Wood deck (not "Robin Woods") is certainly not the first Waite clone.  It was published relatively recently, in 1991, and there are many earlier decks including the Royal Fez Moroccan, the Hoi Polloi, and the Morgan-Greer decks which can be characterized as Waite clones.  I have been involved with tarot forums and lists for several years and I have never once seen reference to any controversy or litigation concerning supposed copyright infringement by the Robin Wood deck.  I would really like to see citation for this one.
I mean no disrespect to the section's author, but if citations cannot be cited for these sentences, then I feel they should be deleted.  How is this kind of thing usually handled?  If the author doesn't provide citations within a few weeks, can I go ahead and delete them?  Burdel 17:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Books on Tarot" section 

message: The "Storytelling and art" section is huge. Would it be in everyone's interest to trim it down? Sam 00:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storytelling and art 

message: Be nice to have these too. --Hitsuji Kinno 15:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversed Meanings 

message: I’m a newbie, so try to be patient please.  Okay, I tried to add a link to my web site, which was removed forthwith. I understand, but I’d like to discuss being able to add it again because it discusses combining modalities.  Here is what I propose: Would it be okay, if I/we create a section that would connect tarot to other things? For example, I think it was the Crowley Thoth Deck that first combined Hebrew text/Kabala, astrology and obviously, Egyptian deities with the tarot. 
Although not conventional, and who is to say that tarot is conventional? The tarot has been used to increase the scope of symbolic connections in the twentieth century. What I’m getting at is connecting tarot to animals spirits, Celtic trees, or any number of other things,to note the increase of the symbolic connections being explored. I am working on connecting chakras with tarot – far fetched to some perhaps, but it represents the combining of therapies or modalities.  I would like to be able to contribute in this area, and have a link of supporting articles to my website. Would that be okay?   Whitelighttarot 20:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section suggestion : tarot and other modalities 

message: Claudio Sanchez's album On My Brother's Blood Machine has liner notes in the form of Tarot cards- what most of them mean, however, I haven't an exact answer (their names are in Italian, which I don't speak). Also, I remember hearing (via MTV.com) that the action figures of My Chemical Romance had hand-drawn Tarot cards done by Gerard Way, their singer. Might be interesting additions to this page.
69.115.231.50 03:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other (Musical) References To Tarot Cards 

message: Recently much of the article was radically changed in a very short period of time. Though I see some definite improvements in the latest revision I'm reverting it because so much text that could potentially be valuable information has been removed without any discussion whatsoever. Much of the article is indeed repetitious and in definite need of copy editing, but please make it practical for users to compare changes by doing it incrementally and getting a group consensus before making such drastic changes. Sam 03:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent activity 

message: As I am new to wikipedia, and I am probably missing something, I felt that I should ask this here before attempting any edits. This page used to contain a brief list of the 22 major arcana, which I though was both in line with the article and very helpful. Recently, that seems to have been removed. Was there any particular reason for that? It seems to me that people looking for a basic reference on the tarot should not have to go further than this page for the basic list, but again, I may be missing something.--151.200.59.216 08:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of the major arcana was removed for a short amount of time and then was restored. You will find it now under "Composition". The major arcana also has its own article. Sam 23:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of the major arcana 

message: I've created a new article devoted to that one topic. I think this would help quite a bit in any efforts to clean up this page. It's hard to decide on which references to "tarot" are significant and which should be deleted without getting into a lot of POV business. For that reason, I've put that entire section into its own space Smiloid 03:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think moving it was a good idea. Tarot cards are everywhere in culture; the list will keep getting bigger and bigger at the cost of valuable space in the main article. Sam 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Storytelling and art

message: I am glad to see the spam police at work here. 
Here are some external links which I have found to be very insightful:
http://www.tarotpedia.com/
http://www.tarothermit.com/index.htm
http://www.geocities.com/cartedatrionfi/
http://www.keypoint.com.au/~skeptics/Tarot
http://skepdic.com/tarot.html
http://hem1.passagen.se/bernvill/tarot.htm
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Tarot_Pack
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/
http://science.howstuffworks.com/tarot-card.htm
Some of these external links have appeared in this article but were deleted due to page blanking vandalism (check the article history). I think they are worthy of being restored Smiloid 04:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the following from the main body text as it seemed to be nothing more than an external link - "Of worth for the situation of the development is the Tarot History Fact Sheet, which was composed on the base of the common ground of various researchers ." - perhaps if it should remain then it should be as a single line in the External Links section.
192.93.164.20 12:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree that some of these links contain good information.  If Smiloid feels that having these tarot criticism links in the article, I would suggest that he expand the "critics" section for the links that provide a skeptic opinion and add the others to the external link section as suggested above.--P Todd 04:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: I can't find any reference to Casanova mentioning tarot in his memoirs, (having searched them via Project Gutenberg). I have flagged it up rather than delete it, though, as various other sites on the internet mention it.
192.93.164.20 11:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: The following text doesn't seem to add up to me:
'A general far-spread, now traditional, hypothesis stated that the final form of the tarot with a (4x14)+22 structure was settled around 1450. This opinion is based on the suggestion that the surviving 68 Bembo cards had in the "6 added trumps" only replacements for earlier "lost cards"'
The total number of cards is 78, but 68 plus six "added trumps" would make 74. I'm no expert on tarot (I just came here for the copy editing), but can someone make sense of this?
192.93.164.20 12:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  You do the math 

message: Dear 165.21.83.240 or 165.21.83.246--If you try again to re-add your list of "characters not in tarot", please do so without reverting all the copyediting I am doing to the article to try and address the NPOV, world-view and copy editting concerns.   Your list seems to represent original research with violates Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No original research rules and may have been why someone else removed it the first time you added it.--P Todd 17:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To the Person Adding the List of "Characters not in Tarot" 

message: I've added a number of templates to this article to help the editors Wikify the content they have submitted. These include Fact, Weasel, Weasel-inline, Or, and POV-statement.
Before additional editing is done, I recommend reading the articles:
Neutral point of view, Avoid weasel words, No original research, and above all Citing sources. Remember also, that sources citied must be reliable sources.
Please take this in the spirit it was intended: to improve the article and make it more encyclopedic. - Parsa 23:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!--P Todd 00:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation and POV templates 

message: Erm, don't worry Sam. Honestly really don't. I took it all a bit more local and tried to get involved in my "home" town's pages to find out how wiki works. Then I decided my style is all a bit too partial and some of the names... anyway, I'm currently getting involved in the on-line tarot community again and refreshing my memory on some of it. I should be able to review how things have been tomorrow. You certainly didn't put me off contributing; I've had quite a lot to think about, like the prostitute murders in Ipswich and what they say about the way that Police forces can actually talk to each other when it's their own and their loved ones that are involved; but not when it's someone dangerous who actually cold do with being scrutinised.
I don't expect this to mean anything to you. And I'm certainly not referring to you in any part of it. I shall however go through the whole lot tomorrow, and your talk page, and give you the benenfit of my opinion after I have.
As far as Asperger's goes, actually, Tom the ex-special constable, who was an original suspect? I thikn he may be on the autistic specturm. He was sniffing around someone I knew when he was a special...which is the foundation of what I say about how forces can talk to each other when they want to but not when their occupatinal culture says it's uncoll to...oh, the lives that have been lost through macho posturing...
Stick with it. I shall get back to you tomorrow. thanks for the mail jogging my memory. I really shall get back to you on it tomorrow...
bollocks. I thought two twiddles signed my name ~
~~
Ah! it's four twiddles... Graphitus 02:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphitus says...