Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-24 Tarot

• Case submitted. Morgan Leigh | Talk 13:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the involved parties?

What I am argueing is that we use specific language on these tarot articles. Morgan Leigh's edits, with all do respect, have not only been biased but in many cases have been factually incorrect. Tarot might be used mainly in the English speaking world for esoteric purposes but we should not imply that it is the ONLY use as many of Morgan Leigh's unfortunately imply. Again with all due respect, Morgan Leigh needs to learn how to use a search engine such as Google and search the term "occult tarot" It is NOT a tautology. On the recreation of the "occult tarot" re-direct, it was an accident as I was not informed of its deletionSmiloid (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the only editor who disagrees with you in this matter Smiloid. If you assert that my edits are not factually correct I would like you to please specify exactly which ones to give me a chance to provide sources. It is a tautology to say "occult tarot" if one is on a page dealing with totally esoteric subjects, as was reiterated by other editors at Thelema and as is also true at Hermetic Qabalah. You are pushing a position that has met with resistance everywhere you try to assert it. By trying to get others to specify "occult tarot" you are trying to privilege a geographically and historically localized use over the overwhelmingly accepted present day use. You have tried to include mention of Tarot card games in articles that have nothing to do with them. For instance, in your edits to the Major and Minor Arcana pages, even though these pages clearly say that these terms are only related to the esoteric uses of Tarot, you add that these cards are not called Major or Minor arcana in the games of tarot, even though the cards used in the games are different from those of the minor and major arcana. You are in effect saying - All cats are red. Some things cats are descended from are not red. These things that are not red cats are not called red cats. Worth adding? I don't think so. Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that we should be encyclopedic in our language. The type of tarot practiced by occultists should be made explicit. I have also made edits to specify when something only pertains to the Rider Waite deck. Some of my edits may have been met with resistance by those with a highly partisan and narrow view of the topic. It appears that they don't want to be reminded that their vision of tarot is not the only one. Most tarot articles here are obviously written by those only interested in and knowledgeable of its uses in occultism and in many cases certain biases result because of it. The language they use is often unencyclopedic and it reeks of cruft. It is necessary to put these biases in check. My edits are based on recent non-partisan and specific usage of terms. For example, I have noticed that most news articles now, at least in the US, when they have events or dances featuring activities such as tarot reading and face painting etc, they specify that it is tarot reading. They don't normally say the readers are simply offering "tarot" at least not as frequently as they used to. The edits I have made were inspired by common usage I have seen recently in US media articles. It's been a while since I've seen the Associated Press style guide so I cannot say if the practice of specifying "tarot reading" is part of their guidelines, but I have noticed a certain pattern recently of specifying that particular use of the cards instead of simply calling it "tarot."

Some clarifications: I'm not arguing for any particular type of tarot, and I agree that it needs to be made clear in the appropriate places that tarot is not originally or exclusively occult in nature. I believe that denying the right of fortune-telling or occult applications to be called simply 'tarot', even when the context is clear, is artificial and overkill. There's some history to this debate. It started with Smiloid redirecting all mentions of tarot in an occult context to the

WP:POINT. Fuzzypeg★ 22:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

From tarotstudies.org http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=+site:tarotstudies.org+%22occult+tarot%22

From tarotpedia http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Tarot_History

J. Karlin's website http://jktarot.com/faq.html

Michael Hurst's website http://www.geocities.com/cartedatrionfi/

My use of the terminology is to avoid language which is unfit for an encyclopedia. I have here documented the reasons for some of my edits.Smiloid (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dummett is NOT an NPOV author in this subject.

"The tarot pack is now very widely known in this country, indeed in nearly every country, as an

instrument of prediction and a document of the occult. It would have been good if those with a taste for magic could have kept their hands off what does not belong to them: they have an abundant literature of their own. When they first appropriated for themselves the tarot pack, it was only an absurdity; now that they have persuaded the world at large that it was theirs from the beginning, it has become exceedingly irritating. Dummett, Michael, with Sylvia Mann. The Game of Tarot: From Ferrara to Salt Lake City. London: Gerald Duckworth and Co. Ltd., 1980. pp xxiv-xxv.

Neither is this site you cite - Michael Hurst's website http://www.geocities.com/cartedatrionfi/

"The “false interpretation” of the occultists was never plausible, and in 1986 all the main variations of it were shown to be untenable, with the publication of Robert V. O’Neill’s Tarot Symbolism. This site presents an alternative to those false interpretations, consistent with the real history and based on the images and sequence of the cards themselves".

Bear in mind Smiloid that we are not claiming that you invented the term occult tarot. We are just saying it is unnecessary that it be used every single time the word tarot appears in an esoteric context.

Morgan Leigh | Talk 03:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term should appear to put tarot in context and yes to demonstrate that tarot was "not yours from the beginning" to quote Dummett. This appears to be the source of the controversy. You want to maintain the appearance that tarot is YOUR property.Smiloid (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the criterion for Wikipedia is that cited references be NPOV, but that the article itself aspire to be NPOV, ie. encyclopedic. Besides, despite Professor Dummett's stated discomfort with tarot cards being associated almost exclusively with the occult in many countries, his books on the occult tarot and his book The Game of Tarot ably cover the origins and uses of the cards for occult purposes in a scholarly, academic manner, citing all sources whether primary or secondary. - Parsa (talk) 04:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?

We need someone to tell us clearly what wikipedia policy about redirects is and to help us find a way to resolve this matter as the arguing is just going in circles and devolving to edit warring.

I believe that the Tarot article, while not perfect, does a pretty good job of explaining how Tarot originated and how occult and divinatory uses eventually appeared. In articles that mention tarot and are in fact intending a specific application of tarot (game-playing, divinatory or occult), that needs to be clear. I believe context is often sufficient to provide this clarity, especially when tarot is only mentioned as a passing reference and is not the focus of discussion. Although some readers may not realise that tarot started as a game, I don't believe we should employ artificial naming conventions across the board as an educational measure; the fact that we link to Tarot will allow them to find out if they're interested. Basically, I believe we were in a fairly good state before Smiloid's edits, and since then I've edited quite a few articles to satisfy myself that they provide sufficient context, that being the only improvement I feel was necessary. Fuzzypeg★ 23:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were not the spark of this controversy. I feel they are being taken out of context. This controversy erupted after the merger of two tarot related articles into the main article tarot.

There were distinct articles on

tarot reading" For some reason Fuzzypeg had objections to the term "occult tarot", a term I have demonstrated has established usage, and how it was used in Wikipedia. Fuzzypeg wanted to make some distinction between "tarot divination" and "occult tarot" which might also be argued as an "'artificial naming convention."Smiloid (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

"I believe that denying the right of fortune-telling or occult applications to be called simply 'tarot', even when the context is clear, is artificial and overkill." The fortune tellers or occultists have no right to steal other peoples' culture. Your insistance upon such "rights" may be the real source of the controversy Smiloid (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself bereft Smiloid. No one owns culture. If you really think that culture can be stolen... well, I despair. This implies that each culture springs complete from the void, not drawing on anything else that came before it, unique in every way. If you can't see how fallacious this is then I guess it's game over. Also, more than anything else you have said, this comment reveals your biases. Morgan Leigh | Talk 13:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It becomes "theft" when it's a dishonest use. The use of tarot cards for the occult or divination is a type of syncretism and it is dishonest to deny that. You should also do some research about what some genuine Kabbalists and Native Americans think of the use of tarot cards to represent their religions. These parties have also leveled similar charges of cultural theft about this use of tarot divination. It is not only game historians like Dummett whov'e made the thievery charge.Smiloid (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny syncretism. In fact I embrace it. Most things are the product of syncretism, including the game of Tarot. Cultural artifacts do not appear from out of a vacuum. Rather they are the descendants of that which came before them. Unless Tarot cards were given to humans by aliens, they are the product of syncretistic combinations from previous human culture. The symbols and suits on the earliest Tarot cards we know of are derived from even earlier games. I can cite this claim if you doubt me. The astrology in use by the Italians of the time was Greco-Babylonian astrology. Does this mean you will accuse the makers of Minchiate of being syncretistic?

Your comment "Genuine Kabbalists" implies that you feel that Hermetic Qabalah is not a "genuine" religious system. What is it about Jewish Kabbalah that makes it "genuine" and Hermetic Qabalah not so? Do you think that Jewish Kabbalah appeared instantly and complete at some point in time? Judaism is a syncretistic religion derived from the religions which came before it, like all religions. No one owns culture. So no one can steal it. How can I be stealing something from someone if they still have it after I have assimilated it?

Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qabalah has been a fixture of the Western occult tradition for well over 500 years. I believe also that for much of that period there was more active study of Qabalah within hermeticism than there was within Judaism! How long must a syncretism be around before we accept it as valid? Is Christianity still to be considered cultural theft from the Jews and the Greco-Roman mystery cults? Is American Baptist Christianity just cultural theft from Catholicism? I know the Baptists don't see it that way. Arguments of superiority based on respective age are rarely convincing or supportable... Similarly Tarot has persisted for at least a century primarily (in terms of numbers of people using it, quantity of literature devoted to it, etc) as a fortune-telling system, and secondarily as a game. To ignore the fact that it originated and still persists as a game would be willful ignorance, and I have no intention to hide this fact; but to pass judgement on divinatory and occult uses of the cards, ruling them to be invalid, "theft" and "dishonesty", is to insist on your own cultural superiority, something that Wikipedia ultimately forbids under the

neutral point of view policy. Trust me, I have similar feelings regarding Wicca, which used to be purely a closed initiatory society, but is now a term used for all manner of beliefs and practices that have virtually nothing to do with what I practise. The public are getting all kinds of totally wrong ideas about traditional Wicca as a result. But there's a limit to what I can insist on here at Wikipedia, even though 'Eclectic Wicca', as it is sometimes called, has only been around in any numbers for 20-odd years, and has only really rocketed to its present huge popularity in the last ten (following a couple of influential hollywood movies). I am only an editor, and I cannot place my own judgements in articles. Fuzzypeg★ 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This is not passing judgement on the occult or divination. It is simply making note that this is one application of tarot cards. On Kabbalah, many Kabbalists do not feel that the association of tarot cards with their practice is "genuine." As I do not practice Kabbalah or any religion at all, this is not an opinion I personally hold but it is one I've seen on Kabbalah FAQ websites. It might be sufficient to call occult tarot simply "tarot" in new age publications which omit any mention of tarot as a game, but Wikipedia should not be written from such a partisan new age POV. To not specify certain uses of tarot as occult or as divinatory does advance a cultural superiority, as if those particular uses are the proper or correct manifestion of tarotSmiloid (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator notes

• Put my name forward as mediator.
  龱 22:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Smiloid's comment about 'stealing other people's cultures' cuts to the heart of the matter, I think. He has made it abundantly clear that he resents Tarot being used for divination or other occult purposes, and his edits show a consistent program of trying to segregate occult and divinatory tarot, to keep it separate from what he believes is its 'correct' or 'appropriate' use. I'm all for being historically accurate and educating our readers, but I don't believe that disruptive editing, edit warring, or the autocratic introduction of novel naming conventions are appropriate ways to achieve this. Fuzzypeg★ 23:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that I resent people using them for divination or OTHER OCCULT purposes. My position is that such usage of tarot should be made explicit as a particular application. Fuzzypeg seems to oppose this and insists that tarot readers or occultists have some right to a priveledged use over the word "tarot." This is where I disagree with him. Fuzzypeg is making an assumption that the term "tarot reading" equates "fortune telling" and this is also where I would disagree. Smiloid (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, my argument about our use of the word 'tarot' is not about "special privilege"; it's about common usage. Secondly, I have already directed your attention to http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reading where definitions given to the word 'reading' include "to foresee, foretell, or predict: to read a person's fortune in tea leaves" and "To foretell or predict (the future)". Please stop bringing up red herrings that we've already discussed to death. Fuzzypeg★ 02:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common usage of "tarot" is in a state of flux right now even as I am writing this. It is not only neo-Pagans and others who are discovering tarot as a spiritual tool but game players even in the English speaking world are also discovering tarot as a gaming tool and I can also document this trend.

Taropedia defines tarot as a family of card games http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Tarot_History "Tarot" refers to a family of games played with an augmented deck, (that is, decks with a fifth "suit" serving as permanent trumps), and also to the decks themselves.

From that same article: The term divination is often defined as the practice of finding out future events or other unknown information by supernatural means (Moore 1999:312). In the Tarot, it most often refers to the act of giving a reading, either for telling fortunes or to find the underlying spiritual or physical patterns of events or causes of a problem. However, for the people who use Tarot, the term can refer to a far wider array of activities. About a third of the individuals who responded to a question posted on the posting boards, included such activities as pathworking and meditation in their definition of divination. In fact, a small number of people defined divination as any kind of contact with an alternate spiritual reality. It must be kept in mind that not all individuals who use the Tarot mean the same thing when they talk about divination. Almost all people who use Tarot do readings with it, regardless of whether or not they use it for additional purposes. Only three people, out of around thirty respondents who replied to the posted questions used Tarot exclusively for nondivinitory purposes. Interestingly, the majority of respondents felt that the Tarot did not foretell specific events, but only probabilities and possibilities. Some felt that the Tarot could not tell the future at all, but acted as a guide to actions or as a problem-solving tool.

So, pathworking and meditation is also incorporated into some people's definition of "divination" This author is making note that there are other definitions of "divination" besides "fortune telling" In the next paragraph, the term "divinatory reading" is employed which implies that there are also non-divinatory readings. The title of this article is " The Occult Tarot and Mythology" Note that she is being specific in her application of tarot and even using the term "occult tarot" Why is the use of this precise term discouraged in Wikpedia articles? The article is a good read but I fail to see how it supports whatever point you are trying to make. She might be making a distinction between divination and fortune telling and the occult, but show me where "tarot reading" is distinct from the occultSmiloid (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very hard to make sense of your last post. You quote a lot of text supposedly from http://www.tarotpedia.com/wiki/Tarot_History, but I can't find the text on that page. Also, I don't believe a wiki is a

reliable source

. Also, the text you quote (wherever it comes from) would seem to support my observation that the term "Tarot" is widely applied to divination and other occult uses, without needing to explicitly be termed 'divinatory tarot' or 'occult tarot'. Also, the bit about respondents defining what activities come under the title of 'divination' sounds very specific to this debate we're having, perhaps too specific. I'd be really interested to see where this information really comes from, and check the date of that text's addition.

Further on, you claim that Sara Caldwell in her article uses the term occult tarot; sure she does, in the title. Throughout the rest of the article, she normally refers just to 'Tarot'. Which supports my point exactly: we may use qualifiers such as 'occult' to give extra qualification where necessary, but we need not insist on them in every case.

And you conclude with by triumphantly stating that 'tarot reading' still falls in the category of occultism, but I never said it didn't! Other people might have different ideas, but I certainly consider divination to be an occult activity. That doesn't make occultism a divinatory activity, though! This is a simple logical fallacy: just because buddhism is a religion doesn't make all religion buddhism. And some people would argue that buddhism isn't even a religion. Just because divination is a form of occultism doesn't make all occultism divination. And some would argue that divination isn't even occultism. There. I've shown you where "tarot reading" differs from the occult. Anything else I can help you with? Fuzzypeg★ 23:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no arguement that "Tarot is widely applied to divination and other occult uses" but we need not use language implying that it's the exclusive use as it is too often done in the new age literature. I concede that there are other ways around the issue, besides always using the term "occult tarot" but my position is that language should be avoided which implies the ownership of tarot by card readers or occultists.Smiloid (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I think we're in agreement then. We won't sideline the game-playing aspect of tarot, and you won't sideline the occult or divinatory aspects. Occultists and fortune-tellers don't own tarot, and we won't imply that they do. Fuzzypeg★ 06:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I think that the use of tarot cards as a European game is something which is hard to deny. Numerous scholarly books on card games as well as displays in card museums indicate that the game was widespread throughout Europe from Eastern Europe to Spain. However, it was played as a game less in France, and not at all in England. In England and the English speaking countries, the only known use was one adopted from French occultists a little over a century ago. It is a fact that in the United States and other English speaking countries, the primary use of tarot cards are for occult purposes of one type or another. This use of course would warrant mention of occult purposes in various tarot-related articles, but I think that the terminology for that usage should be very clear. Imagine if you will that a country, Russia for example, began using the game

Broca's Brain as my source, no matter how popular or engaging the book was [and this book is much more scientific than many other books about the brain would be]. To quote the no original research

article:

"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Parsa (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Parsa, I've not had the pleasure of conversing with you before, but I see you have some new issues you wish to bring to mediation. Some of what you're mentioning kind-of relates to this mediation case, and some of it seems quite tangential. You seem to be saying that we should be especially strict in evaluating sources for occult and divinatory uses of tarot, because to do otherwise would introduce a bias of recentism. I don't see why we shouldn't just follow the standard verifiability and reliable source policies (which we're well aware of); I think your gist is that we shouldn't cite occult writers for information on tarot in occultism; why not, since they're obvious sources? Of course having some academic sources would be great, particularly if they summarise the topic and various views; that's all part of gradually migrating to better and more informative sources. But you seem to be saying that fortune-telling is somehow inferior and we need to be especially hard-arsed about it. I don't get it. If you're worried about anglo-american bias, then please help introduce other views; we're in complete agreement with that! If you're worried about recentism, then please apply the 10-year test as given in the Recentism guideline, and discover as I did that that guideline is not really intended for things which have been around at least a hundred years!

Neither Morgan Leigh nor I are trying to overrun the Tarot article with fortune-telling and occultism. If you have concerns about sources used in the various articles, then please bring them up on the appropriate article's talk page. Otherwise you're just complicating a mediation case which we've all been working hard to resolve. Lets not bring up suggestions for new conflicts we could have, or we'll never reach resolution. Hope you understand... Fuzzypeg★ 06:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzypeg, I'm not singling out folks who are adding content about cartomancy (and related uses). In fact I said, "...only academically reliable and verifiable secondary sources should be used in that section, as in the article as a whole." I've just noted that in the tarot related articles, it seems that many of the problems arise from ardent fans adding unverified, and unsourced statements. This is of course a problem in any article related to popular culture whether it be games or spiritualism. One thing that I think bothers me, and I know it bothers Smiloid, is the assumption by many editors that "tarot" only refers to occult, esoteric or spiritualist uses. I'm sure that's not true for you, but I have seen statements by editors downplaying other uses. In regards to the clarity of terminology, perhaps my analogy was not clear. I think part of the solution is to refer to the cards themselves, for whatever uses, as tarot, but that everyone make a conscious effort to add clarifying adjectives if the intent could be muddled. In many cases I have to support the idea of adding the adjectives cartomantic, esoteric, occult, etc. I would also think it wise to talk about tarot games where that would need clarification. As was pointed out, just saying "John is an expert in tarot" is not clear. It could mean "John is an expert in tarot trick-taking games, "John is an expert in tarot cartomancy", or "John is an expert in the history of tarot cards", among other things. If an individual article were specifically about divinatory, spiritual or occult uses of the tarot, say in an article on a spiritualist, I would say that at the begining (and perhaps at section beginnings) an appropriate adjective be used, but that it would not have to be used in each and every appearance in the article. Likewise, if "tarot" appeared in an article on Sicilian culture, it would probably have to made clear that the game was refered to. I would probably do that anyway for such an article, but as I said, some editors chose to ignore the distinction. Regarding your other question, which I agree is not directly related to the dispute, I would say that popular works on tarot reading and iconography, such as those found online or in bookshops, should be avoided as these are almost always primary sources. They do not represent a scholarly synthesis of existing source material, such as would be found in secondary and tertiary (encyclopedic) academic sources. I would say the same would be true of a common book on playing tarot games. --Parsa (talk) 03:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the points I'm taking from you are:

1. there's a tendency among some editors to write under the assumption that tarot is only for divination, and you'd like us to be on the look-out for such problems. That's fine.
2. you believe we need to be careful to clarify which usage of tarot we're discussing, preferably at the point where tarot is first mentioned. You're basically discussing what constitutes 'adequate framing', and you may be interested to look at this ruling regarding adequate framing of epistemological context for articles on the paranormal. The ruling answers a somewhat different question, I realise, but I believe its approach is reasonable: there are many words that sufficiently establish a paranormal context, so that explication is unnecessary. Similarly, in the context of tarot, there are many words and structures that establish a clear context of occultism. Words such as 'occultism', 'magic', 'astral travel', 'angelic communion' and so on. I went through a whole load of articles on occultism a while ago and checked that the occult context was absolutely clear, or else added the qualifier "occult". So I think (hope) we're on board with you here.
3. Your last point is about referencing, and I would say that reliable sources are great, but reliability is a sliding scale. Occultism is not widely covered by peer reviewed academic literature, and we should take what sources we can get, as long as they're of a moderate standard. As I said above, improving the referencing is an ongoing process, and there's always a limit to what we can find out from academia. In such situations we rely on what we determine to be the most authoritative works in the field. The same holds in any other area of Wikipedia, and I don't see that articles on occultism should be subject to stricter rules than other articles.

Cheers, Fuzzypeg★ 06:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. Before I put my name on this case as a mediator, I've read the above, and I am wondering does this actually need mediation at this point? You do seem to be making progress without any mediation. If you do still consider an independent mediator necessary, great - let me know if you would be happy with my helping you out here. I would imagine it will be fairly easy (although I've been wrong before...!) as nobody above seems completely unwilling to discuss issues constructively, and there does seem to be areas where both parties are willing to concede things. If you would indicate are happy that I am suitable to mediate, we can go forward.

Thanks Neil. Hopefully this is drawing to a close, but perhaps you could just keep your eye on discussions until then, or if you think you can jump in with anything helpful, that would be great. I'm also waiting to see if anything else is going to arise from Parsa's comments. Fuzzypeg★ 22:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]