Talk:The Fool (tarot card)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Board and table games Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Occult Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 11 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to The Fool (tarot card). The result of the discussion was moved to "tarot" ( 'small t' ).

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]

I removed the "Examples" section since it was entirely

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]

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

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

• 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

      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]

• I'm pretty sure it's not a typo, and that it's supposed to be bindle. See: Bindle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.75.111 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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?

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]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect