Talk:Tasseography

The last two paragraphs need to be changed so they're no longer in the imperative, NPOV'ed, and preferably cited. While I could do the first two, I'm hoping that someone who has access to the sources would be able to do a better job, so I've added the cleanup-tone template. Chuck 20:09, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I did a little editing. I hope it helps clear up the tone of the article. --Matrona 21:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Following the added link to tasseography.com, the text on http://www.tasseography.com/history.htm looked rather familiar. archive.org confirms that the text has been around since 2004, and it was just pasted into the article in one go earlier this year, by a user who has made no other edits. I've gone through and removed the offending paragraphs. --McGeddon 18:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. "There is no scientific evidence that individuals can divine future events." just seemed like a redundant statement, because there's nothing (that I can see) in the article that claims divination to produce verifiable results. If there were any sentences that implied the process produced accurate predictions, we should rewrite them to be neutral. --McGeddon (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The implication is that it works. There has to be a bold statement that it doesn't, just for the poor soul who might think that because it's on Wikipedia, it must be true. Those that believe in this stuff, won't care what we right. The statement is a throwaway, because typical of trying to prove a negative, I can't find any reliable source that has studied this hooey. But I haven't stopped looking. Anyways, I'm willing to lengthen the statement, clean it up, improve it, but I'm strongly opposed to deleting it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the implication is there - we're explaining tasseography clearly in terms of being "divination or fortune-telling", we're not carelessly saying at any point that "tasseography is a method of perceiving future events". It seems on the same level as saying that a fairy is a "mythological or legendary creature" - we don't need to add "there is no scientific evidence that mythological creatures exist" to the lead. --McGeddon (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A bypassers note: the article on Fairy actually tells us that they are mythological beings or legendary creatures. A pattern maybe? ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 16:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This article reads like someone is subtly saying tasseography is legitimate. There is not one word mentioning the lack of proof that it works, and the statement directly saying so was deleted. This article desperately needs acceptable references as well as removal of the excessive number of weasel word statements. JascalX (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no scientific proof that literary criticism works but we don't feel a need to write that in the opening of the article. Tasseography doesn't actually make any scientific claims so I can't see how sciences opinion of it is any more relevant than its opinion of science 86.131.28.138 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Should we delete this? It seems like an attempt to provide some "proof" for tasseography, which is not the goal here. --MochaSwirl (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

have you even looked at the quoted source at all? How on earth is that used as a reference for anything? Its a practicioner's book with not a single source stated for its highly dubious historic claims; traditional romany divination method is palmistry. No, I'm reverting your revert as you cannot just introduce nonsense in an article w/o a credible, scientific source like this. 89.164.44.38 (talk) 20:20, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to read up on Wikipedia:Edit warring, however the point is that you have no credibility while the source listed also cites references for the claims. You do understand that your edit is being made without any source or backup for the removal? CMacMillan (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

"the ancient art of tasseography" is itself the source for removal; just follow the link already given and in it you will not find any explanation as to how the author knows what they claim they know; no historical studies, no footnotes or references for where they got it, nothing at all. I'd call it a primary source but so removed from what it pretends to describe even that seems silly. Do you need another reason for removal? I'd love to read a scientific, historiagraphical etc study on the matter of the spread of tasseography through europe instead if such exists to support claims about this spread. And of course it should be obivous as to why this standing w/o one would be highly problematic, even racist a claim w/o such support, given the history of orientalist steretypes ascribed willy-nilly to this marginalized group by precisely such popular books as "the ancient art of tasseography". If you think less of a nonsense source can be found I cound stand with marking this as a primary source. But insulting nonsense should not stand in an article long-term w/o a reliable secondary source for the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.44.38 (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see a reworked article, and in fact even a discussion calling for additional sources (WP:UNDUE, WP:ETHNICITY) and removal of weasel words like "ancient art" (WP:V, WP:RS).

What I'm not accepting is that you have a knowledge that overrides published sources - even one as 'problematic' as you challenge this one to be - without more argument than 'silly', 'willy-nilly', and 'nonsense'. For all the challenges you claim here, you bring even less scholarship to the argument. (WP:PRIMARY) The article is not sacrosanct, but it can be held as-is pending valid challenges. CMacMillan (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough, my position was simply that it is better to say less in an article, if one cannot claim much about the history of the discipline with adequate certainty, and scholarly study of these topics is afaik rather sparse; removing essentially the entire section on history pending finding a proper sholarly book in the topic, or one being written would seem to me to create a more solid article than repeating uncertain legends from the popular circulation. I do think one needs but to take a look at the sources given to see how deeply below wikipedia standards of reliable sources they are, so the lack of scholarship here is merely reflecting the fact I did not think I was saying anything contentious in this selection of epithets for them. For eg, how does that quoted "turkish vibes" page know anything about the practices of ottoman courtisans in the harems? Should we believe w/o any evidence given that this is not the invention of the author but based on for eg, some unnamed court records and other proper historiography? And above I have the exact same kind of question on the use of "the ancient art of tasseography" and its lack of sources while making substantive historical claims: w/o some proper historiography on the topic, how can we know whether the practice of reading coffee grounds was actually spread by a particular ethnic group instead of simply being a matter of cultural diffusion, following the spread of coffee culture in general, from the ottoman areas and the areas of the habsburg monarchy? The practice is extremely widespread there and not ethnically limited, and the sharing of a drink necessary for the practice seems more conducive to the spread along familiar, neighbourly and networks of friends, than as a commercial service requested from members of the society most tended to seek to maintain some distance; so, its not at all obvious that this is how it would happen. It is ofc possible, just as it is possible that this is no different to spurious attributions of say the introduction of tarot to the same ethnicity popular in the 19ct, for apparently no more solid basis than the orientalist mistique ascribed to them. What I do not see is how sources like these would convince the reader one way or the other, given that they neither verifiably summarize historical work, nor do they engage in one, analyzing old records, census data, or whatever else is necessary to establish their claims to a critical reader. And then, what is the point of their inclusion, if they cannot help the reader actually verify the veracity of the claims this article makes? If you agree, I would therefore be perfectly happy with simply the removal of the entire section in question, as essentially nothing is left if one does honor WP:RS there ("Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source"). Current marks I left treating these as primary sources untill we can reach some consensus, or find better sources, is imho a fudge already; as a 21ct practitioner is hardly an eyewitness or in any sense close to the events a few centuries ago as that would normally suggest, and yet a reliable WP:SECONDARY source would be verifiably based on and engage in the analysis of actual primary sources that these do not as just discussed. 141.138.33.222 (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)