Talk:The Devil (tarot card)/Archive 1

Archive 1

I will talk too you

I will talk to you 2409:4050:2E81:877C:0:0:6CC8:FF12 (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:The Fool (Tarot card) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

The personal essays giving the occult interpretation of all these arcana need to be replaced with text that is more closely founded on two or three of the major published interpreters. As they are, they'd be "Original Research"— if research had been involved. --Wetman 19:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You talkin' to me, Wetman? If so, my apologies; I had neglected to add citation. An unaccountable oversight. I had added it to most (all?) of the major arcana pages I had edited. Alas, my records are not complete enough to allow for pinpoint citation, if that is the type of documentation you want. Lutanite 00:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing personal. These passages of improv would be more encyclopedic if they were presented as a report of what has been said by interpreters. Any interested editor could probably pull a standard favorite from the shelf and improve this article without feeling the least aggrieved. --Wetman 11:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "Examples" section since it was entirely Original Research which Wikipedia does not allow. I left the "mythopoeteic interpretation" section because that may have come from a reputable source but it seems to be something based on personal interpretation like the "Examples" section. - DNewhall

Peripheral "references"

Are any of these recent additions germane to the subject, which is the tarot of The Devil?

• Most works by Joseph Campbell
• G. Ronald Murphy, S.J., The Owl, The Raven, and The Dove: Religious Meaning of the Grimm's Magic Fairy Tales (2000)
• Riane Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade (1987)
• Mary Greer, The Women of the Golden Dawn
• Merlin Stone, When God Was A Woman
• Robert Graves, Greek Mythology

I would say they all are. Because they all contain indepth discussions of the archetype and how they interrelate to other archetypes of the unconscious. Reading any of them would improve the understanding of someone trying to master this aspect of the tarot. I get the sense you want pinpoint citation, which I am not seeing on other pages, so I don't understand why it would be required here . . . what am I missing? Lutanite 01:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't hear anything for a while, so I removed the cleanup flag. Let me know if that violates protocol - Lutanite 05:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"Suit of Disks"?

Isn't "suit of Coins" more familiar in English? --Wetman

I don't think so. I've got about 30 decks, and only a couple call it coins. Most are either pentacles or disks for that suit. The Rider-Waite-Smith deck (which is the Ur-modern deck) is Pentacles. Lutanite 21:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, a number of older decks are translated as coins and have been thought of as being the original "disks". - DNewhall

Yes, well, older decks have things like anchovy cards as well. That's why I specified that the Rider-Waite-Smith was the Ur-Modern deck, rather than the original deck.

I plan to restore some of the deleted material unless someone can explain to me why it is original research to acknowledge archetypes appearing in contemporary materials. Lutanite 20:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Read the definition.

Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source.

— Wikipedia's policy on original research, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OR

Can you provide any scholarly papers or noted books on the subject that use Farscape or Buffy in their interpretation of the cards? - DNewhall

Read the definition before I posted a word, DNewhall. I am a lawyer; we're good at reading rules. I don't see the difference between, say, posting a picture of a column and saying "this is a doric column" even if it hasn't been identified as such in print, and saying "this is an example of a the archetype." Simply a useful way to convey information. As opposed to removing information, which really seems to undercut the whole premise of an open source encyclopedia. Lutanite 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Frequent keywords

From the article:

Some frequent keywords are:

• Materialism ... blah blah blah ... Ganance

Ganance? 82.71.1.116 17:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Unverifiable and unbalanced content

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 cited, and the source needs to be verifiable, and reliable. Waite is not an unbiased, factual source on the history or evolution of tarot cards. The work can be cited properly, however: "Waite's opinion in his book The Pictorial Key to the Tarot ... etc"

The card in question has a history of over 500 years in European card games in which it is used as trump card (see Tarocchi). The article is unbalanced in that it only features the recent uses of the card for divination. This makes the article biased due to its recentism. Since the article ignores use of the card for game play in Europe and other parts of the world, it offers an anglo-american perspective that raises NPOV issues. There are academic sources and sources from international organizations discussing the history and evolution of the Devil card as well as its use in games. These need to be utilized. - Parsa 06:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)