Talk:Tarot/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archived discussions that seemed to be finished here on 10.08.2005 -- AlexR 10:08, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the following empty heads: Tarocchi, Egyptology, New Age. Also, I made the intro of the article more readible.
In the article itself there's still too much information. I think the article could be a lot shorter, better organised and more precise perhaps, bye, Hippocrates

I noticed some gaps here, and filled them in with text from an article I wrote for kuro5hin.org. There are no copyright issues to this: kuro5hin does not claim ownership of stuff posted to it.

What makes the Isis Tarot "very spiritual"? - Gwalla 23:25, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

"The cards in each suit are numbered 2 through 10 with four "face" cards." This makes 13 cards per suit, and does not fit with the need for 56=4*14 minor arcana cards! David.Monniaux 10:11, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've amended relevant section to add the Aces in too - someone obviously forgot to mention them, as they are generally considered distinct from other "pip" cards (dependant upon who you ask.) Warren 17:45, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I quoth this article's introduction:

"Tarot played with a 78-card set with similarities both to usual card sets and to usual card sets." Huh? Do you mean similarities with the tarot card sets, or something else? I'm afraid this sentence, as written, doesn't make any sense at all. User:Sim 27 Jul 2004

Removing above quoted text: Can somebody more balanced than the book's author verify whether the last entry on the References list should be included? The change was slipped in under the guise of a minor edit and seems unlikely to be very useful.


Contents

Inappropriate spam?

Aren't these links inappropriate? They offer no information on Tarot:

--Wetman 19:35, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

hierphant- magician

Is the author refering to the hierophant when this should be magician?

Yes. Hierophant is a Greek word that adds glamour to any sentence in which it appears ;) --Wetman 20:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reorganized the page

I recently reorganized the page, aimed at moving the historical portion from the end to the beginning. Not sure if this has left any linked terms unlinked in the first place they appear. Someone might want to go over that and check them. Smerdis of Tlön 9 July 2005 06:27 (UTC)

Chaturanga

The relationship between Tarot cards and playing cards is often said to be unclear, but in fact the history is tolerably well documented. Playing cards appeared quite suddenly in Christian Europe during the period 1375-1380, following several decades of use in Islamic Spain. They may have evolved by mutation from circular cards used in India to play a wargame called "Chaturanga" ("Four Kings"); some very early decks, including one preserved in the Topkapi Palace in Istanbul, were circular.

Isn't Chaturanga an ancestor of chess? Was there another game by this name? - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Also (according to WP and others) "chaturanga" doesn't mean "four kings". Indian round cards and chaturanga certainly both exist, but they seem to be different games. The closest Google will find to a reference for the last sentence you quote is:
Also the ancient native board game Chaturanga, which later developed into its Persian form Shatranj (still in use), has been claimed as a possible source of inspiration for the Indian round cards. ([1])
I've removed the offending sentence and linked to Playing card since this article has a better section about the origins of cards in Europe. It already mentions Indian cards as a speculative origin—if anyone thinks the speculative link of chaturanga to the Indian cards which are speculatively linked to playing cards is worth reinserting, that article would be the place to do it. —Blotwell 03:56, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I edited the page to make it clear that Crowley is alledged to have an affinity for black magic, rather than asserting that he did, in fact, have such an affinity. I also corrected the entry so that the Crowley deck is correctly called the Thoth deck on second reference rather than the Golden Dawn Deck, of which at least three versions are currenly published and none of which have anything to do with Crowley. adistius

  • That works for me. I appreciate the clarification. Furthermore, you seem to know a great deal about the history of the Golden Dawn Deck. There is a red thread about the subject that you may want to contribute to. ILFoxtrot