From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Occult (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Etruscan Origins Anatolian?[edit]

There is only apocryphal sources that name the Etruscans are coming from Anatolia, but no empirical evidence.

Marked as dubious. (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Pope Innocent[edit]

If there is no source, should it not be removed? As for being "not too far-fetched", it doesn't sound far from Dan Brown-esque conspiracy nuttery. Also, one of the links is broken, and the other leads to the Vatican Museum, and has a picture of a small statue of a soothsayer. Of the two book sources, both are specifically about the origins of Greek haruspicy. So once again, whence came the stuff about Innocent I? The Innocent I article mentions Zosimus, but the Zosimus article makes no mention of this anecdote (and should ancient anecdotes really be taken without some caution?); book 5 of Zosimus' history as translated in one of the links on his wiki page gives this account:

On this the Romans, being convinced that it was really Alaric who attacked them, and despairing therefore of all things that conduce to human strength, called to mind the aid which the city had formerly met with in emergencies; and that they, by transgressing their ancient institutions, were now left destitute of it. While they were occupied in these reflections, Pompeianus, the prefect of the city, accidentally met with some persons who were come to Rome from Tuscany, and related that a town called Neveia had delivered itself from extreme danger, the Barbarians having been repulsed from it by storms of thunder and lightning, which was caused by the devotion of its inhabitants to the gods, in the ancient mode of worship. Having discoursed with these men, he performed all that was in his power according to the books of the chief priests. Recollecting, however, the opinions that were then prevalent, he resolved to proceed with greater caution, and proposed the whole affair to the bishop of the city, whoso name was Innocentius. Preferring the preservation of the city to his own private opinion, he gave them permission to do privately whatever they knew to be convenient. They declared however that what they were able to do would be of no utility, unless the public and customary sacrifices were performed, and unless the senate ascended to the capitol, performing there, and in the different markets of the city, all that was essential. But no person daring to join in the ancient religious ordinances, they dismissed the men who were come from Tuscany, and applied themselves to the endeavouring to appease the Barbarians in the best possible manner.

Emphasis mine. According to Zosimus' account, it didn't even happen! Some source... Sanders-Pehrson in Barbarians and Romans, University of Oklahoma Press 1983 (p.110) claims that "this anecdote may be a pagan fabrication." The Dictionary of Christian Biography (under Alaric), in wikibooks, is similarly sceptical about Innocent's assent, and notes that the story is otherwise well-attested (is it? Does anyone know?); other than that, I can only find sources relating to Pope Zosimus, who, funnily enough, succeeds Innocent I.

This legend reappears on the page about that Pope, again unsourced, and the Catholic Encyclopaedia article used as a primary source makes no mention of it! In fact, it notes his "great zeal for the purity of the Catholic Faith". The article on Innocent I on wiki then returns to what is in the Catholic Encyclopaedia article by asserting that the Pope was outside the city when the supposed permission was given (which raises the question of how it was given when he couldn't get in...). Curiouser and curiouser. As such, I'm deleting the comment for now from both articles, since it is unsourced, and doesn't sound terribly in-character, given the Catholic Encyclopaedia article. IMO it's too odd to go unsourced. If you feel otherwise please un-delete, but I would like an explanation of your reasoning here, please, or a source listed. I shall attach this comment to the Innocent I discussion page, too, for clarity. (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Khenty-khety

te a source about the commetn about Pope Innocent I? I find it unlikely he would condone pagan divination.

I don't have a source, but it's not too far-fetched. Stan 05:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not logged in, but I'll attempt to sign manually. I was wondering... why does "soothsayer" redirect here? There are multiple forms of soothsayers, both in the ancient and modern world, who were not a haruspex within Etruscan or Roman society. The germanic peoples, for example, used Runic divination, and those who specialised in this field are widely considered and called 'soothsayers'. Can anyone give me an answer why "soothsayer" directs here instead of having an article of its own in which haruspex is linked? Oh, and I also removed the rubbish one anonymous user put on the talk page (since they were song lyrics which mentioned haruspices arbitrarily, and had nothing to do with the article; I thought it to be vanity inserted into the talk page, and thankfully not in the article. If you really want to read it, look at the history. User:Kaelus

Haruspicy is not exclusively Etruscan or Roman[edit]

Seems that people don't know about Babylonian extispicy. Guess yo'll are too busy praising Jesus or watching CNN to read up what's available even on the internet! Babylonians are directly or indirectly the ultimate source of Etruscan haruspicy during a time when they were still residing in Western Anatolia before 1200 BCE. Old Babylonian Extispicy by Ulla Jeyes, anyone? --Glengordon01 02:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Really bad sources[edit]

Anyone who thinks Ars Haruspicina counts as a valid source of information is not playing with a full deck of cards. And I quote from that website:

"APLU! Phoebos! Apollo! Delian! Pythian! Lord of Delphi! Guardian of the Sibyls! Or by whatever other name You wish to be called, I pray and beseech You that You may by Your majesty be propitious and well-disposed to me, for which I offer this Egg. If I have worshiped You and still do worship You, You who taught Mankind the Art of Prophecy, You who have inspired my Divination, then come now and show Your Signs that I might know the Will of the Gods! I seek to know (say the Question) THUI SRENAR TEV! [Show Signs, here, now!]."

Oh go to hell, you fruitcake. We need real facts here, not a sceance. I'm taking it out. Eat me. --Glengordon01 09:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Pop Culture stuff[edit]

I was pretty glad that this section was removed, and I'm dismayed to see it back again. It is a long list of non-notable trivia that I think has no place in a serious article. Does anyone want to defend keeping it around? If not, I may take it out again Mlouns 13:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The user who removed the section is on a pop-culture-section-removal rampage. He's blindly removed about 100 of them so far. This is not the way such sections are to be handled: as per WP:TRIVIA, these sections are supposed to be kept around for possible improvement or integration with other sections. I've reverted all such edits by this user, as vandalism, because that's what it constitutes. If there are specific reasons why the contents of a section would never be suitable for the article, even if improved and/or integrated into other sections, then specific rationale should be cited, and then the items can be removed. Categorical removal of all pop-culture sections is not acceptable, and will be reverted just as categorically.
Equazcionargue/improves13:53, 10/9/2007
I can buy that -- it did seem like a crude way from him to go about it. But I'll still take the opportunity to see if anyone wants to defend keeping the items on this particular page. If I don't hear in a few days, I will probably delete, since it all seems like useless cruft to me. Mlouns 14:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image flipped?[edit]

This commentary material was added to the article by an anonymous editor:

By the way the image shown of the liver above is the mirror opposite of what the actual object looks like because whoever uploaded it flipped it horizontally. It seems it is impossible to edit the first section of this page and so I have taken the liberty of pointing out the error in the presentation of the liver image shown above in this section of the diatribe instead. Anyone who knows how to edit the first section and can take the time to re-flip the liver image will be doing innocents a favour.

Just moving it here for discussion and resolution. /ninly(talk) 14:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Haruspicy/ Hepatoscopy[edit]

Shouldn't some explanation be given of the difference between haruspicy and hepatoscopy? I'm not an expert, but I'm guessing haruspicy is examination of entrails, and hepatoscopy is examination of the liver? This isn't really made clear in the article, they are treated as the same. Just a thought.VenomousConcept (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Haruspicy/ Extispicy[edit]

This is like the above question. In what way is Haruspicy a special case of extispicy? They appear to mutually overlap, rather than the characteristics of Haruspicy being a subset of those of Extispicy.

Ken M Quirici 18:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kquirici (talkcontribs)

Haruspex vs. Auspex[edit]

Current version states "a haruspex (plural haruspices; Latin auspex, plural auspices) was a man trained to practice a form of divination called haruspicy, hepatoscopy or hepatomancy. Haruspicy is the inspection of the entrails of sacrificed animals, especially the livers of sacrificed sheep and poultry. The rites were paralleled by other rites of divination such as the interpretation of lightning strikes, of the flight of birds (augury), and of other natural omens. Practitioners during the period of Roman dominance gradually adopted the title auspex from the older word haruspex, or from the Latin avis (bird) and specere or spectare (to look/see)." (emphasis mine).

There are no strong evidence to back this up. Not that "auspex" is a Latin word equivalent to (some other language? Etruscan? English?) "haruspex" -- the etymologies I looked at all point to "auspex" being specifically a diviner of birds, and the word is so described in the Auspice article, while "haruspex" is derived from IE root 'gher-', "bowel" (; nor that the diviner could only be male (the word in Latin is of the male gender, but that's irrelevant to the English meaning) -- Suetonius writes about the female haruspex, Spurinna, warning Caesar about his death; nor that practitioners of haruspicy gradually adopted "auspex" to refer to themselves "during the period of Roman dominance" (over what?). I am changing the opening paragraph to reflect the Auspice and Augur articles; please revert only with support from original sources. Orbis 3 (talk) 21:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Spurinna is not a "female haruspex": like Cinna, it's a masculine name. Secondary sources are what's needed, not OR based on primary sources. The -nna ending is a characteristic of Etruscan names, such as Porsenna. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Plain silly[edit]

The reading of the liver and intestines of animals, is a medical/social cultural instance.

Both the liver and intestines of animals have a tendency to accumulate parasites and show changes due feeding habits.

Those are localized conditions and not far away conditions.

What you are describing here, are remnants of thought of individuals still in the dark ages, where the most likely reason for going after quote heretics and quote pagans, have no reason whatsoever, except a parasitosis of that what is in their own liver and mind, accentuated by psychosis and schizofrenia.

Why don't you add this, instead of continuing to putz most any to a return to ' dark ' ages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)