The gap between the occultist and the serious historian is unbridgeable, because anyone committed to preserving an esoteric system of hidden knowledge will have avoided the explicit documentation of any such tradition into which one had been initiated. Thus, the documentary evidence upon which the historian relies would, in theory, always remain elusive.
This simple statement - like so many other ideas and theories - has been lambasted in the history section as hogwash. But, other than the idea of whether this statement is reasonable or not (which I will get to shortly), there seems to be another conversation going on here. And that has to do with the tendency of some members of the history section to lash out - often in an abusive tone - against those who present ideas which don't match up with their own.
But wait, one might say. As the guardians of knowledge, don't we have the right to protect people from the harms of misinformation by determining what is real and what remains fantasy? The problem with this is that, in the world of tarot history, so much remains in the realm of uncertainty. And, ironically, it is within this sphere of uncertainty that most people find interesting topics for discussion.
You can't prove one way or the other that God exists, but the idea has captured the lives of just about everyone on the planet, from the begining of mankind. It's (in one sense) a way of explaining ourselves and the world around us. In a similar fashion, these esoteric or alternative theories of the tarot are simply contexts within which to explain or visualize the cards.
Esoteric explanations of the tarot are not demanding proof simply because they can’t be disproven (ala the Santa Claus argument). They are simply suggesting alternative meanings to (Tarot) images, based on other associations of these images.
The evidence for such theories is based mainly upon similarities or associations with other forms of art which use the same images. But it's in the interpretation of these images that the cards develop their meaning. And the problem with historical "facts" is that it's often difficult to determine just how accurate they are. For example, U.S. history is based upon facts which are handed down to us through text books, stories, pictures, etc. But do you think that the history of this country would appear differently if these “facts” were presented by Native Americans instead of the White Man?
In the same sense, tarot history may be “told” differently according to the story tellers, and the context in which the images on the cards are being deciphered.
My personal feeling is that a forum should be open to discussions about a variety of topics. Some will offer reasonable evidence and others will not. Those who choose to participate in those discussions should be free to do so without harassment from others who believe differently. Those who disagree should feel free to move on, and they have the same right to post information which is of interest to them.
The caption under the History Section states: “research, studies and THEORIES on the origins and development of Tarot and playing cards.” By my online dictionary definition, a theory is "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.” If that’s the case, then, since many of the theories presented in this history section fit that definition, demands for “proof” are moot points, and shouldn't prevent these theories from being included or open to discussion.
If these ideas are not interesting to some members, I would suggest sticking to other threads. But if it's decided that these ideas are really not appropriate for the history section, then I would suggest correcting the subtitle to exclude "theories," as this could be very misleading to new AT members, as it was to myself.
Here's one solution: Maybe the 99% of the members who offer posts which fall outside of the strict requirements of the few history buffs should rise up and protest the abusive tactics from the 1% of those interested in defending a limited range of historical knowledge. These history buffs can then either start their own forum, demanding a certain level of evidence in order to be included, or they can back off and refrain from taking personal or confrontive pot-shots at other members and just do what they do best - which is to offer information, when appropriate (and in a professional way), from their vast weath of knowledge and research.