Talk:Tarot card reading/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reverting the document

I understand this is a consensus thing, at the same time there isn't any question about the validity of the sources I was using. My primary sources for constructing the early esoteric and cartomantic history in this article are Michael Dummett's exhaustive tarot studies. Unless I am completely out to lunch, these sources are above question. That these sources where questioned is an indication that the editor involved was not paying attention, reverting without solid foundation, for reasons yet to be properly explained. I even wrote on the article talk page what I was doing. Personally I think he just came in, saw a bunch of edits, maybe didn't like some of the statements, and did a knee jerk reversion. I understand that kind of thing is encouraged here, but that doesn't make it right.

I wish to revert the document back to my last changes. I can then begin addressing whatever issues remain, like the length of one of the section, or whatever other concerns emerge, by responding to a discussion on the talk page. I don't believe a BOLD revert is called for in a case like this since my understanding is BOLD reverts are designed to get people's attention and there is no need for that. I was paying attention (judging by my consistent edits over the past few weeks). I also believe that my additions to this article are important not only because they have added historical detail to the entire document that was missing previously, but because they are working towards an end goal which is an explanation of the emergence and explanation of the occult tarot, a comparison of the various decks, etc.

I'll revert later today if there are no objections. In the mean time I would like to know, are there are any Wikipedia policies that speak to the proper editorial etiquette when an article is actively being worked on by an editor? To be honest the actions of IRWOLFIE were abrupt, disrespectful, and dismissive of the work I had done. My initial thought was to simply throw up my hands and walk away, accepting standard scholar's criticisms of Wikipedia (i.e. that it is not a good source or space for scholarly work). I think that would have been a loss for Wikipedia and myself since my intent has been to do a lot of work on this article, and related articles, on occult topics and figures related to the tarot (all of which need considerable attention IMHO).

As for one editorial opinion being more important than another, that seems to be to be off by a mile. If Michael Dummett (RIP) came in here and made an edit on this document I would have to consider long and hard before making a revert. I wouldn't make any sense to just say, well my opinion is just as relevant as his because it wouldn't be. I know far less then he did on this topic and if my concern is the quality of this resource, I would have to defer to his expert opinion, unless I could come up with a reasonable justification. I wonder in this context, are there any wikipedia policies that acknowledge when an individual editor has a specific expertise in an area?

Mike Sosteric PhD 12:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs)

Keeping in mind the suggestions I have made above (Start by NOT asserting that your sources are unquestionable), please try to work with Wolfe. If that fails, You can ask for a third opinion editor to come in WP:3O and if that fails, you can request a mediator thru WP:DRN. There are other options beyond that, but they are never pleasant. Wolfe has given you some ground already. Accept that, keep civil, and keep your writing tone in the debate in a form that shows you are open to discussion. remember that primary sources are generally discouraged (A dissertation, no. A dissertation published in a recognized journal, yes). also keep in mind you are writing an encyclopedia article designed for understanding by most anyone with a high school education, not a scholarly paper. Think textbook for a high school junior. The idea is to take the subject, refine your dispute to something that you can come to a consensus on, and then write the text so that your 17 year old can understand it. You give some up, he gives some up, you form an agreement and move on. That has always been and probably always be the way Wikipedia works. Again, good luck. I know nothing of the subject matter here, and don't care to, so don't bother making arguments to me. i am just trying to get you guys to talk to each other in a constructive way. Your last paragraph shows me that you are still not getting what I am trying to tell you. this is a tertiary source. We only publish what others are writing about research. Original research has no place here. We never write about anyone's opinion. Without sourcing to secondary sources, we would not allow Einstein to write on the theory of relativity. Gtwfan52 (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ya I get it about secondary sources. I am using secondary sources and I'm not quoting original research. And I'm sure Einstein or Dummet would be able to cite appropriate secondary sources as well. Down the road I do plan on adding my conclusions from my "A Sociology of the Western Tarot" article, but I will only do that once that article has been accepted into an established journal. I will respect Wikipedia guidelines on source authority and stuff and I will learn as I go. I also get what you are saying about the tone and age level of the article. Obviously what I've done needs work in that area and I can do that, but it would have been far easier to simply suggest that in the talk page and let me work it out in the article as already constructed.

Since the sections in question were sourced with authoritative secondary sources, I would like to revert the edit. I can make immediate changes to the tone of that section, but allot of the material in it should stay in my opinion. I want to revert it back, make changes to make it acceptable, and move on from there. I see no reason not to bring back the table I added, or the sections on the founding figures (why would somebody interested in the occult tarot now want to know who the founding figures were?, tarot initiation, etc. That section is almost done anyway since I really only have to mention a few more figures before completing a comparison of the occult/cartomantic decks.

I understand the give and take nature of this, but I'm also concerned about the scholarly quality of the article. The reversion back to the article and the removal of those sections lowers the quality and utility of the article, removes historical detail, and defaces what would become a solid and well written article on the occult/cartomantic tarot. And I'm not making these arguments to you, I'm just making these arguments because I want the article reverted back, even if that does mean I need to make changes to content and tone. Thanks for taking the time to educate me here. I do sincerely appreciate your time and effort.Mike Sosteric PhD 14:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't be trying to add content based on sources which are written by you, that would be a Conflict of interest. See WP:COI. Rather you can suggest changes based on your own material on the talk page, and let other editors decide, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I accept Michael Dummett as a reliable, academically accepted source on this topic. Paul Huson though, whose work is published by Destiny Books strikes me as an advocate and a popularizer rather than a high quality academic source that we want for an article like this. What do others think? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 15:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds about right, IRWolfie- (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wolfe, I totally agree with you. In fact, Huson was there before I got to the article. If you compare and earlier version of the article here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divinatory,_esoteric_and_occult_tarot&oldid=529782672

with a more recent version by me here

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divinatory,_esoteric_and_occult_tarot&oldid=542628421

You'll see that I was in the process of REMOVING references to Huson. Had you not reverted the edits that citation would have been gone within a week, maybe two, replaced by legitimate historical/sociological sources

Indeed, the only section left where Huson is referenced is a section a) not written by me and b) that I would have removed altogether, or shortened to a single paragraph, given the chance.

I just want to enter in an apology for getting so worked up. I realize your actions are in good faith and that you are concerned with the quality of this page, as am I. As a personal anecdote, I find the history of occult topics is a ridiculous, a historical, anti-academic, sociologically vacuous affair and I'm hoping to help remedy that. I've been studying the area for ten years but even so, and even for me, it a difficult and challenging topic, given that it broaches religion, politics, economics, and so on. I am open to suggestion and criticism and really hope to be able to open some space on the Wikipedia for improvement in these resources. Let's work together to improve the quality of these resources so we can make them well written, comprehensive, and authoritative.Mike Sosteric PhD 16:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs)

Thank you for the apology, Dr. Sosteric. Accepted by me. As to the matter of Huson, at the Teahouse, immediately after you told everyone that you were an "EXPERT", you listed sources that you said you had added to the article. Huson was second on that list, and accordingly, the second source I looked at. So which is it, adding Huson or removing Huson? If Huson is an unacceptable source, then be bold and remove Huson immediately, explaining why in your edit summaries. If Huson is a marginal source, valid perhaps only for documenting what practitioners argue rather than as a high-quality academic source, then make your opinion of the source clear. so that we can come to consensus about this particular source. What you've said, correctly in my view, about the "history of occult topics" should make it clear to you that this broad topic area needs participation and overview by generalist, uninvolved editors. Otherwise, this whole group of articles will deteriorate into a morass of fringe theorizing, speculation and utterly unverifiable claims. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

My mistake. I should have checked my cut and paste more carefully. Anyway, the intent is removing Huson. "Be bold and remove Huson Immediately?" Ok I will do that in the future. My strategy for editing this article however was to do it gently and progressively so as not to appear to be "storming the battlements," offending previous editors, and making myself a nuisance early in the game. Apparently I should have just come in here and erased the whole article to begin with, since ultimately it is my intention to remove all the old materials and replace it with properly sourced commentary. That would have been pretty bold. But thinking about that I though I'd just raise the ire of everybody involved, so I took a more cautious approach. Be bold or be cautious? Is there a standard procedure for working with article such as this one which, as you say, always have a potential for "into a morass of fringe theorizing, speculation and utterly unverifiable claims." Mike Sosteric PhD 19:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs)

There is no standard procedure, though blanking a page is almost always considered bad form unless it is an unambiguous attack page directed against a living person. Even there, I would leave a brief inoffensive stub article. The number one principle is discussing the changes calmly on the talk page, and with other interested editors. Diplomacy and a collaborative attitude in such matters goes a long way. In addition, if you propose a fundamental rewrite of an article, it is a good idea, in my opinion, to write a brief critique of the page in its current form, and a brief description of what you intend to accomplish with the revision. I used the word "brief" twice in that last sentence to emphasize that a very lengthy argument will often turn off other editors. WP:TLDR It is better to break the changes down into, say, 20 or 30 discrete chunks, each properly referenced, so that it is easy for those of us without topic expertise to read, analyze, examine the source and either concur or object. There is no rush to transform the article overnight, especially since in this case, other editors have actively expressed an interest in the changes you are making. Consensus takes time, but the result is a better article that all interested editors can be proud of.

In this specific case, several of the editors who have commented probably came to this article because of the Teahouse discussion. I did. There may be other interested editors who haven't yet noticed. You may wish to examine the article's edit history, and see who the content creators have been over the years. If any of them are still active on Wikipedia, you could ask for input on their talk pages.

Please try to get into the habit of signing all of your talk page comments with four tildes, "~~~~". This will add your signature and date stamp. Otherwise a bot will do it for you some time later, and experienced users may think you don't yet know the ropes. Clearly, you want to learn and contribute here, so that is a friendly social hint. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes I am in the habit of doing that, but sometimes it doesn't' work for some reason. I presume it is because I have to sign on exactly the same line as i end the comment?Mike Sosteric PhD 13:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs)

By his own admission Michael Dummett is not an expert on this topic - "(t)he fortune telling and occult part of it has never been my principal interest" see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dummett. He is an expert in the history of card games, which is not what this article is about. I suggest that it would be more in keeping with the actual topic of this article if you relied on actual experts in occult divinatory tarot, whose names are legion; Crowley, Waite, Levi, Knight, McGregor Mathers, DuQuette, Westcott. If you are unfamiliar with these authors then this is not the page you should be editing.

I'd also like to strongly suggest that you don't continue to delete large swathes of the article because they don't have citations. The correct way to go about this is to add citations or ask others to do so by adding the citation required tag where appropriate. People will continue to revert your edits if you do this. I understand you are well motivated in your task, but you need to realise that even if you spend a great many hours editing the article this will not make others privilege your input over theirs. You may have a well formed idea about how you'd like the article to be shaped and believe it will benefit from your expertise. But so do many others who have contributed to this article over a long period of time. It is personally offensive to me that you have chosen to edit this article and yet you declare that you find the occult laughable. It's hard to take you seriouly as an objective editor for this page when you make such statements. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

????? Dummett says that tarot is not his principle interest, not that he is not an expert on the topic. I'm going to presume you actually haven't read any Dummett because if you did you would know how absurd your above statement was. My God. There isn't anyone on the planet who has a done a more exaustive history and study of the occult tarot then Dummett. As for your experts on occult, they aren't really experts at all. Dummett does a masterful job of pointing out their antischolarly, ahistorical, extremely biased, and often absurd approach to tarot. Not that I would go so far as to say there isn't something interesting, spiritual, or mystical about Tarot, but if it is there you won't fine a reasonable treatement in the the work of any of the names you mentioned. And yes, I have read them.

As for deleting large swaths, when I started this I was gently going through the article, removing sections that had no bases in fact, and that wouldn't stand up to scholarly scrutiny, but then somebody came in an removed large swaths of my edit, because they said my citations weren't good enough. When I suggested they not do that because it was offensive and hurt my feelings, they referenced Wiki's BOLD edit policy, and I was shut down and had to fight very hard to convince people i was actually using sold references. Interestingly enough, the people you cite were not considered solid references by other editors on this site. In fact my edits were being reverted not because I was using bad references, but because the editors who came by didn't look enough to see what I was doing and presumed I was using bad references, when in fact I was not.

As for finding the occult laughable, I don't. I'm a student and scholar of the occult. I take mysticism and magic seriously, and not just from a critical perspective (though I am critical of it where criticism is required). What I don't do is take the claims of the tarot patriarchs seriously because they aren't based in any kind of historical fact at all. I'm not saying there isn't something mystically interesting about the Tarot, just that we need to improve these articles with a bit of a historical perspective, a perspective that will hopefully spur additional research on this topic. It is funny, Dummmett says that those interested in the occult tarot don't like history too much, and prefer to reference themselves and engage in "false ascription," but I think accurate history and a critical turn doesn't mean an end to the occult tarot

I am sorry if I offended you but I am just following the editing advice of others on Wikipedia here. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm finding there isn't really any editing standards here and it really just depends on whomemver stomps by with a mouse and a predilection for clicking. Very confusing.

I was told by someone else that I wasn't to tell people to go read any books here, but I suggest you at least go find Dummett's two major sources on this, and read those. That way you won't be importing historical error into these articles and devaluing them as reasonable sources on the tarot and tarot trumps, and moving them back to a stage of edit that other editors criticized as being un-encyclopedic and horrible. In fact I would suggest that anybody that wants to edit these articles should at least have Dummett's three books on the subject to hand otherwise these articles will quickly descend into ahistorical, anti-factual, self referencial silliness.Mike Sosteric PhD 12:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

And could you tell me, where exactly did I say I found the occult laughable. If I did say that I want to remove it because that is hardly my perspective on the Western mysteries.

From this diatribe I can clearly see that you are not an impartial editor capable of encountering other people's opinions with politness and and are incapable of meeting wikipedias most basic requirement, that of assuming good faith. You will find that speaking to other editors like this will not serve you well. You do not own this article. Morgan Leigh | Talk 23:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I am encountering your opinions. What you call a diatribe is me disagreeing with you. I think you are the one with the issue here. You want an opinion, but you don't want to back it up, defend, or otherwise give any indication that it is a good opinion. I have indeed "encountered" your opinions. In fact, I have countered them, now it is your turn to encounter mine, and counter them if you can. In order to do that you will need to pick up Dummett so you can see what amazing authority he is, you will need to tell me where I said that I thought the occult was laughable (your accusation, not mine), you need to address the weird inconsistencies in editing advice I keep getting (be bold, don't be bold/ delete all the bad references, use the bad references). You need to do that because you are giving me contradictory advice. And tell me where were my statements impolite? All I said was suggesting that Dummett was not an authority was absurd and an indication you have never picked up his book? How is that rude and impolite? Is it untrue? Have you read Dummett? And if now, if you have never picked Dummett, how can you claim to represent his expertise or not. And how is challenging your "opinion" of that anything other than dialog between two editors. You have read the talk pages and as you can see there are long standing criticisms of the quality of these articles. No, I do not "own" these articles, but I am taking responsibility for them and I do feel we need to maintain a certain editorial standard, and one of those standards will need to be knowing what is a good source and a bad source. Dummett is a good source on Tarot. Crowley, Waite, Papus, or any of the other patriarchs of the tarot are not. They said some things about Tarot, but most of the things they said they made up. This has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. They bent the tarot to their own purposes and they did in a historical and fanciful sort of way. Sure we can use these references, and I do plan on using them at some point, because whatever they did with the tarot they made it into a spiritual thing. But we cannot compare them in a positive way against Dummett. Dummett (RIP) is a first rate historian and scholar, these other people are not.

Anyway, tell me where I was being impolite specifically. What was it that offended you so much in my diatribe? I know you are here here in good faith, but understand me, the advice I get on editing seems very much random at this point and it is frustrating. First Waite et. al are not good references, and Dummett is. Now Dummett is not, but Waite et. al is. Then somebody tells me I am saying things that I am not, and calling it

And tell me where I said the occult was laughable? You took offense at a statement that I don't believe I made. You put words in my mouth and used that to swing a verbal mace. Maybe I said them, but where? I want to find out so I can both apologize and set the record straight about what I actually think about the occult, and the tarot.

you may claim my statements are strong, and I accept that, but your statement "It is personally offensive to me that you have chosen to edit this article and yet you declare that you find the occult laughable. It's hard to take you seriously as an objective editor for this page when you make such statements" it is equally biting and direct. So what, you can make biting and direct criticisms, call into question my objectivity, and cast aspirations on my editing ability, but I can't do the same. If it is wrong it is wrong and I apologize. But if it is wrong it is wrong and you are in the wrong as well. Mike Sosteric PhD 23:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

From earlier in this page "I find the history of occult topics is a ridiculous, a historical, anti-academic, sociologically vacuous affair... ".

N.B. When you find yourself saying to someone "My god." Then you are not being polite.

You rejected my suggestion that several of the most well known writers on the occult use of tarot are not good sources by stating your opinion that you prefer Dummett's work. I do not suggest that Dummett is not a person who should be cited. However a person who admits they are not an occultist is not going to be the best source for an article about the occult use of the Tarot. Yes, he was written expansively on the history of the tarot, including the history of its early occult use. That is all he is an expert in. He can not be cited as a source for the occult use of the tarot. I'd like to note that his condescending attitude toward those who use the Tarot for occult purposes betrays his biases. This same attitude also shows in your writing on pages related to Tarot here on wikipedia.

The occut use of the tarot is not all about rationality. It is an intuitive activity, which is often attacked by rationalists, exactly as you did, by accusations of having made stuff up. The processes of magic accept the seeking gnosis in arational ways as well as rational ones. Not irrational, arational. Irrational is that which fails the test of rationality. Arational is that which cannot be judged by the test of rationality. It is this aspect that the authors I referred to are experts on, (also note they are not 'my sources' as you claim, they are sources I am suggesting) and any work on the subject of the occult use of tarot would be incomplete without them.

Lastly, please learn to sign your posts. Just put four tildes immediately at the end of your post. Notice I am not saying "My god how can this person not have learned how to sign their posts". This is me being polite. Morgan Leigh | Talk 00:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Collaborative interaction between editors

Gentlemen ( and Gentle Ladies, if any be present),

First, let me encourage you to conduct yourself in a respectful and collaborative fashion, always keeping the widely accepted behavioral guideline to assume good faith in the forefront of your minds.

Secondly, I want to emphasize the critical importance of reliable sources, and especially the preference for the highest quality, academically accepted sources for contentious or controversial topics.

I encourage both of you to read the content guideline on fringe theories. Here is what it says abut sources: "Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas." Accordingly, books written by advocates of occult tarot, and books published by advocacy publishing houses, should be used very sparingly, and only with clearcut consensus by all involved editors. I will stand firm on this as long as I am involved with this article.

As I have said previously, I have no topic expertise in this field, and my interest is only in maintaining the overall quality of the encyclopedia. At the same time, I am thoroughly convinced that the editorial participation of neutral editors without topic expertise is an essential element of creating and maintaining neutral, well-referenced articles about controversial topics. Accordingly, I do not accept the statement by Dr. Sosteric, "In fact I would suggest that anybody that wants to edit these articles should at least have Dummett's three books on the subject to hand." I will edit any article I choose to edit entirely as I see fit, with online resources, or printed resources, or no resources, relying on logic, experience and established Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Not every edit is a substantive content edit, and not every legitimate and useful edit requires topic expertise. This is a core principle for me. If anyone wants to mail me free copies of Dummet's works or any other works, my address is Jim Heaphy, 3 Palestrina Ct., American Canyon, CA 94503 USA. But I am very unlikely to buy them. That being said, I do find Dummet, based on what I have read about him, to be an impeccable source of the highest academic standards.

On the other hand, Morgan Leigh writes "Crowley, Waite, Levi, Knight, McGregor Mathers, DuQuette, Westcott. If you are unfamiliar with these authors then this is not the page you should be editing." This statement is also unacceptable to me. My function here is to improve the encyclopedia, and uninvolved scrupulously neutral editors, who lack topic expertise, can always bring something useful to the table. Does a New York Times editor working on an article about the Higgs boson need to be an expert on the Higgs boson? I don't think so. I will be frank: I have no wish to develop topic expertise in this area. The only one of these I have any familiarity with is Crowley, and I know of him primarily in the context of mountaineering, which is a field where I have some modest topic expertise. I would need to be convinced that he should be considered a reliable source on any occult topic, other than his own personal opinions on that particular topic. And I would need to research the acceptability of the other sources mentioned to express any opinions. Wikilinks, please, rather than last names?

In conclusion, if the editors chiming in here can collaborate and cooperate and avoid tossing insults around, the result might be a vastly better encyclopedia article. If not? Well, we have many failed articles on controversial topics. Let's not go there. Play nice in the sandbox, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I am frustrated though by the cavalier way editorial standards and guidelines seem to be thrown around. What is appropriate seems to depend very much on who is doing the speaking. I'm not pointing any fingers at anybody, just saying that as a newbie the waters are treacherous. As for your comments on editing, sure by all means edit. I still would suggest that anyone who wants to do substantive edits on these controversial articles should read Dummett, or should be listening to someone who has (or should at least find some other valid sources). An article like this has the potential to influence a lot of readers, even scholars, so making it solid is very important IMHO — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs) 02:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please learn to sign your talk page posts. It is easy, simply make four tildes the last four characters you sign. Every time, without fail. You are correct that some editors here do not pay proper heed to policies and guidelines. This is an imperfect encyclopedia. But it is in the midst of self perfection, and every sincere, committed editor advances that goal every day. So don't despair. Simply work to make the encyclopedia better. And therefore, it will get better. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

One Source Tag

I have added this tag today as I feel the article relies too much on the work of Michael Dummett. He is a good source for the history of the tarot cards but his obvious bias against esoteric interpretations of Tarot make him a poor choice for being relied on so heavilly in an article on the occult aspects of Tarot. I have ordered in some books and will be adding references from them once they arrive. In the mean time any input by other editors with sources from other authors would be gratefiuly received.Morgan Leigh | Talk 01:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Bias, False Ascription, Confusion, and Esoteric Lie of traditional Tarot Sources

Its great that you are going for extra sources, but if this means you'll be incorporating a historical nonsense into the body of this article, I must object. Dummett is relied on heavily here because of the careful way we brings reality and Truth to the discussion of Tarot. His analysis is historical and detailed and he is very careful about pointing out the false ascription, bias, and lack of concern for historical facts of the "esoteric" tarotists, something that is very, very important to include here. He's not biased against spiritual or mystical knoweldge, he's just a historical paying attention to the facts. You need to be careful about the sorts of "sources" you plan on using for this article, otherwise this article will end up being useless as anything more than esotericist propoganda.

You may find interesting this paper I wrote on tarot entitled A Sociology of Tarot. It is currently under review at the Canadian Journal of Sociology. I would suggest that anyone interested in editing this article have a look at my article first, just so you don't end up reproducing the sorts of historical and spiritual "fancy" that has characterized world knowledge on the tarot for so lon.

http://www.sociology.org/wp-content/uploads/A%20Sociology%20of%20Tarot.pdf

Mike Sosteric PhD 15:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Sosteric (talk • contribs)