Jump to content

Talk:The Fool (tarot card)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

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)[reply]

Coordination

[edit]

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)[reply]

Unverifiable and unbalanced content

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • is it really necessary to add this remark (with ever-so-slight modifications) to every major arcana article?
    • To the anonymous commentator above, I'd say the answer is yes. I've no particular issue with those who believe that you can tell the future from a deck of playing cards designed for use in a game that very few people now know the rules for. To each his own. But as others on this page have indicated, even now I see an article almost entirely composed of information that can't be verified, hasn't been referenced, and is completely subjective. In divination, a Tarot card doesn't have a specific meaning; it depends entirely on what the reader sees in it. Therefore I'm of the view that the divination aspect of Tarot is one that should be touched on lightly, since there isn't all that much that can definitively be said about it: each occult enthusiast will have his or her own 'true interpretation', but that doesn't help an encyclopaedia. - Shrivenzale 09:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the comment really isn't extremely helpful, and I plan to go through and remove tags that seem to have been placed on many tarot card articles based solely on this point of view. Most of the articles on the cards do seem to cite sources, and frequently discuss them in text.

        But the claim that Waite and other sources are unreliable because they are occultists interested in divination or mysticism strikes me as an example of positivist bias. There is an extensive literature on Tarot cards and their use in occultism or for divination. There moreover is broad consensus within that literature about how the cards are interpreted, and their significance in Tarot reading. Waite is one of the key authors in this tradition, at least within the English speaking world. To simply brush off this material as "unreliable" or mere "personal opinions" from "occult enthusiasts" is quite wrong-headed.

        I'd like to go through and add a bit of history to these articles, and discuss the meanings given by Etteilla, Mathers, Waite, and other significant writers in the development of the traditions. By all means, expand this article with information about the card's significance in tarot games. But I do plan to remove "unreferenced" tags and the like from claims that do in fact have obvious references, that seem to have been added only because they reference writers interested in divination. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Ihcoyc, if you do any of that without citing verifiable and reliable secondary sources, then you are doing original research. This is an encyclopedia, not a place for users to synthesize material from primary sources. If you want to do that, you can create your own web site and sysnthesize to your hearts content. If you can find a verifiable and reliable source that itself cites references and was written in an academic manner, then by all means do so. There are a few books like this such as A History of the Occult Tarot (Decker and Dummett), and A Wicked Pack of Cards (Decker, Depaulis, Dummett). - Parsa (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the Description of the Fool as "bundle" was written as "bindle" ... and to give a more generic description of the card. Polgara (sorry, I didn't sign in) 167.30.48.43 04:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Visconti Fools hair

[edit]

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)[reply]

Cruft - Template added to Symbolism Section

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Gstieß" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

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)[reply]

"🃠" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move 11 August 2022

[edit]
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) 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 not 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 RSes (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)[reply]

– All articles with titles Foo (Tarot card) should be moved to Foo (tarot card). The article Tarot does not consistently use "tarot" as a proper noun. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 13:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 18:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, for now. The article is a typical Wikipedia compilation and not a WP:RS in itself, so that shouldn't guide us here. Meanwhile, looking at Google Ngram viewer, the spelling "Tarot" is still very common and, in several cases, more common that "tarot" e.g. "the Tarots" is way more common that "the tarots". I'd say they are both equally valid and, as we already have consistency, we should stick with the status quo for now. I do wonder whether tarotists tend to use the capital form more often that card players, but haven't analysed that. Bermicourt (talk) 13:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:GAMECAPS Sports, games, and other activities that are not trademarked or copyrighted are not capitalized. No such user (talk) 10:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Tarot isn't 100% a game; it's also a cultural belief with some religion-adjacent aspects. My understanding (which is not perfect) is that more serious New Agey types tend to capitalize Tarot, and probably best to give deference here. SnowFire (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's deal with hard evidence, shall we? Per MOS:CAPS, only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia, bold mine. Ngram [1] shows that "Tarot" and "tarot" are in about equal use, with slight preference to the former. If we examine the GBooks that specifically deal with the subject (written by practicioners), they usually do not capitalize, as evidenced from several examples only from the first page of results:
      • Bunning, J. (1998). Learning the Tarot: A Tarot Book for Beginners. Red Wheel Weiser. ISBN 978-1-60925-413-1. Retrieved August 17, 2022. The standard tarot deck consists of 78 cards
      • Dean, L. (2015). The Ultimate Guide to Tarot: A Beginner's Guide to the Cards, Spreads, and Revealing the Mystery of the Tarot. The Ultimate Guide to. Fair Winds Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-1-59233-657-9. Retrieved August 17, 2022. This book offers everything you need to know to read tarot cards
      • Moore, B. (2012). Tarot Spreads: Layouts & Techniques to Empower Your Readings. Llewellyn Publications. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-7387-2784-4. Retrieved August 17, 2022. Fairly early in my journey with tarot
      • Moore, B.; Fell, A. (2012). The Steampunk Tarot. Llewellyn Publications. ISBN 978-0-7387-2638-0. Retrieved August 17, 2022. ...that I make a steampunk-themed tarot
    No such user (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's not capitalized by most reputable sources—which seems to be the case—then Wikipedia should follow suit. It would also be in line with the recommended Wiki style. (In addition to the list of sources above, Encyclopedia Brittanica does not capitalize). Fredlesaltique (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Fool_(tarot_card)&oldid=1239355090"