Talk:Cartomancy

Comment 1

Article as currently presented describes a vewpoint as to how to do divination as "the one true way" Hackwrench 21:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I shall be removing the NPOV tag placed on the article by Hackwrench. It appears to me that his or her edit to the article on Feb. 26/06 deals with the issue that troubled him or her, and subsequent edits by various users have also addressed various POV issues in the article by appropriate nuancing. --Aquarius Rising 06:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the criticism section should really be expanded and should give some more detail. It satisfies NPOV as it is, but a section should be more than just a couple of links. I'm going to go add the {{sectstub}} tag to it. Eventually, I might get around to fleshing it out a bit myself. ---DrLeebot 15:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the list of playing card/tarot card suit attributions to conform to the documented beliefs of the first eighteenth and nineteenth century cartomancers, while acknowledging the contrary beliefs of modern card readers.KitMarlowe2 19:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment 2

I do believe that the correspondence between Tarot suits and modern playing card suits is Spades/Swords, Hearts/Cups, Clubs/Staves/Rods, and Diamonds/Coins/Pentacles, rather than what is listed currently in this article. This is supported in this wikipedia article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suit_(cards), as well as via common sense (Clubs and Staves seems far more likely than Diamonds and staves. I understand the desire to reflect historical views, but I don't think that contradicting other articles is a good plan. Perhaps this merits further exploration and revision. ---- Lingmystic, 5/22/2007

I've gone ahead and switched it around to that organization (plus arranged it alphabetically by modern suit), plus provided a reference which uses this arrangement. In the future, don't be afraid to be bold and make changes like this yourself. --DrLeebot ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Contents

I think the page should be expanded to include different methods of cartomancy, while the explianation of what the Tarot is remains within its own article. Right now, it seems like cartomancy is more specific than it actually is - Tarot is just one kind of card divination. There's mention of card meanings, which should probably only be included when cross-refferenced to other meanings, according to different traditions. --solstice 05:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Playing cards and suit systems

Tarot does not have its own unique suit system. The suit signs used on tarot divination decks are the same as the ones used on Italian and Spanish non-tarot playing cards. There are also tarot decks with the French suit system. See French suited tarot There are also at least 4 different suit systems for non-tarot playing cards.Smiloid (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Tarot was initially popularized as a playing card set and then in the 1800s (some 400+ years after this gaming origin) it was proposed by de Gebelin and others after him as an occult tool. Lenormand and others used other gaming decks (notably Euchre, a 32-card system) for their occult constructs. As has been mentioned, the suits weren't entirely standardized either in Tarot decks or in others. Generally, Tarot falls into the category of Cartomancy, though in common subject-delineation the generic ("cartomancy") is used for non-Tarot fortune-telling. At times the Hermetic or other esoteric communities will attempt to separate out Tarot as specifically designated for more grandiose purposes, such as pathworking in qabalistic reflection and ritualizing or meditative self-development.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Scientism Bias?

(FreeRoll (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC))

I don't see that the second paragraph of the criticism is relevant. It's rather like criticising Christianity because no physical mechanism has been proposed for Christ's walking on water. Such criticisms imply a sole 'correct' world-view which takes science as it's basis, a view which is, in itself, a belief system. As far as I know, Wikipedia is not the sole preserve of subscribers to Scientism!

If such criticism is worth making, it should be on under articles on general occultism, religion, parapsychology on the grounds that it is a general criticism of any world-view which is not based on laboratory science and not of any specific practice.

The first paragraph also ignores the fact that symbolism is used in all cultures and all ages therefore there can never be any absolute symbol system and certainly not a concise one. This doesn't invalidate the use of cards or other means as a way to produce a series of symbols with the intention of interpreting them in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsur (talk • contribs) 14:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no need for "criticism" here unless there are also criticisms presented for every "scientismatic" article (criticisms of atheism are absent, for example, and no discussion of problems with scientific method (isolating multiple inter-related criteria / contexts / factors is nigh impossible)). If there's going to be criticism here, then it needs to be applied consistently across the board, and I don't see that happening. Since this comment was added 3 years ago, and still no additions, I'm going to delete the criticism as irrelevant.

Graidan (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Can some one explain this to me I've been. Warned to stay away from this by family members the call it witch craft / demonic

What is going on lol 2600:8801:CA15:3300:DC6:C3D5:AE48:1F5B (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)