1
141.138.33.222
Guest
The Ancient Art of Tasseography
[td]:::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]]).[/td] [td]:::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
RIMARY]]) The article is not sacrosanct, but it can be held as-is pending valid challenges. [[User:CMacMillan|CMacMillan]] ([[User talk:CMacMillan|talk]]) 22:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]:::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. ([[WPRIMARY]]) The article is not sacrosanct, but it can be held as-is pending valid challenges. [[User:CMacMillan|CMacMillan]] ([[User talk:CMacMillan|talk]]) 22:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]::::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. [[Special:Contributions/141.138.33.222|141.138.33.222]] ([[User talk:141.138.33.222|talk]]) 14:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]::::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. 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. [[Special:Contributions/141.138.33.222|141.138.33.222]] ([[User talk:141.138.33.222|talk]]) 14:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
Continue reading...
| Line 38: | Line 38: |
[td]
β Previous revision
[/td][td]
[td]:::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]]).[/td]Revision as of 14:19, 2 September 2025
[/td][td]:::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]]).[/td] [td]:::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
RIMARY]]) The article is not sacrosanct, but it can be held as-is pending valid challenges. [[User:CMacMillan|CMacMillan]] ([[User talk:CMacMillan|talk]]) 22:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[/td][td]:::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
RIMARY]]) The article is not sacrosanct, but it can be held as-is pending valid challenges. [[User:CMacMillan|CMacMillan]] ([[User talk:CMacMillan|talk]]) 22:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
[td]::::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. [[Special:Contributions/141.138.33.222|141.138.33.222]] ([[User talk:141.138.33.222|talk]]) 14:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[/td][td]::::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. 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. [[Special:Contributions/141.138.33.222|141.138.33.222]] ([[User talk:141.138.33.222|talk]]) 14:03, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[/td]
Continue reading...
