From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Religion (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

scholastics have been through here[edit]

It seems the scholastics have been through here. I pulled up the first version of this page, which deals clearly with the most famous oracle of all, that of Apollo, at Delphi. Since then, that specific topic has been moved to the last-mentioned page, while a whole constellation of articles on this oracle or that have been written.

I don't argue that good content has been added, but I find it overprecise, perhaps imprecise, to discuss all oracles as though they were merely their sibyls. The Oracle was not a crazy woman raving in a room; she herself was considered unimportant by her contemporaries, a mere conduit. The Oracle was the voice of the god Apollo, high in the Pantheon, and taken very seriously indeed.

I see no reason for this radical revisionism, but I lack the time and patience to pick a fight over this, overhauling the entire complex of articles. I do insist on a simple link to the only Classical oracle most readers have ever known. — Xiongtalk* 14:58, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

Oracle Corporation[edit]

Should a link be added to the Oracle Corporation? I think, in modern times the word "Oracle" actually refers to the company, almost as often, or as often, as the prophetic Oracle. - Tejastheory 01:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't the disambiguation link serve to do that? Sunray 08:29, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
On further reflection, I agree that it may be best to provide a link to the corporation, and have done so. Sunray 09:08, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
But surely it doesn't make any sense to have the infobox for the Oracle Corporation on this page. I've removed it. 19:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It does if you consider that the vast majority of the people searching for 'oracle' are actually intending to search for 'Oracle', as in the company Oracle or the Oracle Database —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

The Oracle of Ancient English[edit]

I heard something weird and I thought it was true, I have Schizoprehnia so I will not say for sure it is true, but merely learn what I can from it.

The link doesn't seem to work for me. What's the point, exactly? MasterXiam 02:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the default result for the serach Oracle go directly to the disambiguation page, as it is likely most users searching for oracle are actually looking for information on the company/database Rtcpenguin 21:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


I removed ancient Macedonia from the sentence about semi-Hellenic countries.Most historians agree that it was a Hellenic one.--Hectorian 12:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Oracle database[edit]

I would imagine that most people (like 98% or so) doing an internet search on Oracle intended to find Oracle database. Are there any objections to reversing the default so this page becomes Oracle (prophecy) and Oracle points to Oracle database? As a compromise Oracle could point to the disambiguation page. I'm posting this here because I figure this is where the objections are most likely if there are any.

Surely the Oracle Corporation and database were named for oracle, as defined in this article. As you correctly note, if you search Google for "oracle," the first many pages are devoted to Oracle Corporation. However, note that Google does not distinguish capitals. However, in dictionaries and encyclopedias "Oracle" refers to Oracle Corporation; "oracle" to the prophetic source. If you search for "oracle" in a dictionary you will get a definition similar to the one in the lead paragraph of this article. People who want to know what an oracle is will want to find this article. On the other hand, people who search Wikipedia for "Oracle Corporation" or "Oracle (database)" will get the company and the software respectively. That is as it should be.
There is a disambiguation for the Oracle database listed at the top of the article, which makes it easy for folks to switch to that article if they've mistakenly come here. I would be strongly opposed to a change in the way the articles are referenced. It would make no sense, based on what I have just outlined. Sunray 05:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I know I'm late to the discussion (very!), but it seems to me that most people doing a web search for "Oracle" would be looking for the database, while most people searching Wikipedia specifically would be looking for this article. So I think we should cater to the latter crowd. :-) --tiny plastic Grey Knight 07:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"Surely the Oracle Corporation and database were named for oracle" - not true. Accoring to "Softwar" (ISBN: 074322504X), the corporation was named after the flagship product, but the database was named after CIA "Project Oracle". CIA was their first client, they were interested in a RDBMS, so they built it.

See this for a shorter version: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The 'Oracle' corporation was originally intended to be a[ny] company that would provide a computer program to aggregate and collate information about a rare mucousal artifact -- an oracle-bead chronicle. However, no such computer programming has yet been applied to the discovery of the artifact, other than facsimiles/e-mails sent to the Archaeological Institute of America which have presumably been retained somewhere in that overall database. The Oracle Corporation addresses business-domain applications only, and has never demonstrated any intent or purpose to aid investigation of the tiny bead artifact found in Degolia, PA. Therefore, in my opinion, the corporation should be the odd entry out (disambiguation). Beadtot66.217.65.184 (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflicting histories of closure[edit]

I removed the text:

In the 3rd century, the oracle (perhaps bribed) declared that the god would no longer speak there.

because it appears to contradict Famous oracular statements from Delphi, which records prophecies from the 4th century. I replaced it with this from Pythia:

Its last recorded response was given in 393 AD, when the emperor Theodosius I ordered pagan temples to cease operation.

Neither claim is referenced, so verification is needed. -- Beland 00:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved per discussion (non-admin closure). PeterSymonds | talk 16:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(Requested page move)Point Oracle to Oracle (disambiguation) instead of to the person referred to as an oracle.[edit]

As stated here in the past, the majority of the people looking for "Oracle" will search for the multi billion company Oracle Corporation, and not for the philosophic alternative which discusses persons referred to as oracles.

As both topics are quite high profile, i would like to suggest moving the current "Oracle" article to a different article name, and point "Oracle" to Oracle (disambiguation). To me it makes much more sense to point people to a page where multiple options are being given, then blindly sending them to either one of different topics. Even trough there is a {{otheruses}} i don't think that this should warrant the current situation. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 18:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you any proof that a majority are looking for the corporation? Have you checked Google Books and Google Scholar to see what the predominant use of the term is in reference texts? Would this page-move achieve much that couldn't be fixed with a second hat-redirection at the top of the article that goes directly to the corporation page? Knepflerle (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that it is possible to check the intent of the users who type "Oracle" in the search field, as it will automatically take them the the scholar related page (Statistics on page views would not work that way). However, i think both articles can be called high profile enough to warrant a disambiguation; Oracle as a company is the second largest software vendor in the world, only surpassed by microsoft. Also many of their products can be called industry leaders in their respective market.
I trust you that the scholar interpretation for Oracle is a major topic. Since i am not really into scholar related articles i would personally qualify it as less notable as the company, but i am pretty certain that unless you have some ICT affinity or frequently use oracle products the entire brand seems just as minor. If both articles are highly notable, and have the same name, i would suggest adding a disambig layer in between to prevent any mixups.
As for the OtherUses tag: I don't deem that this would really solve the problem. Even as a regular editor i somehow managed to miss the disambiguation link on top of the article since i was distracted by the image on the right side(at part from that: An user might just as well be searching an oracle product). I can only imagine what happens to non frequent visitors if they get a page full of text containing just a little link to an other uses page. Besides, as both articles are highly notable i would not deem it correct if either one would get a direct link using an often used term to describe both of the articles; your just bound to create confusion for at least some users. Frankly i would just as well suggest a move if the article was a direct link to the company, as i would suggest a move now. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment There are about an equal number of page views and about an equal number of links to each (slightly more page views for Oracle, slightly more links to Oracle Corporation). Almost no one is clicking on Oracle (disambiguation) - there are ten times as many views of Oracle than there are of Oracle (disambiguation), so right now by some mysterious mechanism (links?) almost everyone is getting to the page they intended to find. I would suggest leaving everything as it is other than adding a better nav link at the top (which will also make it impossible to tell if everyone was really looking for the corporation). There are a few links that point to the wrong page. I'll start in on fixing them. This is what a Google search for Oracle looks like - it's easy to see how people always get to the correct page: (talk) 00:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oracle 11g, Siebel, PeopleSoft | Oracle, The World's Largest ...
The world's largest enterprise software company, Oracle is the only vendor to offer solutions for every tier of your business -- database, middleware, ...
Stock quote for ORCL - 44k - Cached - Similar pages

Oracle Technology Network | Downloads, Discussions, and ...
Oracle Technology Network provides services and resources to help developers, DBAs, and architects build, deploy, manage, and optimize applications using ... - 73k - Cached - Similar pages

Oracle Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Encyclopedia article about the company, including history, products and services, and controversies. - 137k - Cached - Similar pages

Oracle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An oracle is a person or agency considered to be a source of wise counsel or prophetic opinion; an infallible authority, usually spiritual in nature. ... - 53k - Cached - Similar pages
  • Oppose the move. The primary meaning is a person or agency considered to be a source of wise counsel... as the current article puts it. To move as proposed wouldn't be quite as bad as redirecting white to White Motor Company, but it's the same sort of idea. Andrewa (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The primary meaning of the word oracle itself is indeed a person or agency considered to be a source of wise counsel.... Yet if we look at the term oracle it is just as valid for both articles. For me personally (Completely Non NPOV of course) the primary association with the word oracle would be the vendor, as i meet oracle products much more regularly then i meet the other meaning of the word.
Regardless, you sure have a point here. I am still in favor of adding a disambiguation page for clarity, but seeing both your statement and that of there is likely a smaller issue then i suspected it would be, and much less of an easy, no big impact move i originally suspected. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 14:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:naming standards talks of what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity. But there's no easy way to measure this! Andrewa (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It seems fairly clear that the philosophic concept is the primary meaning of the term. The hatnote should be more than suifficient for those looking for the corporation. PC78 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Hatnote is enough, the company is not more well known than the primary meaning. --erachima talk 20:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current arrangement is the best, the disambiguation note at the top is enough. -- Beardo (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

About Tibet[edit]

Something should be added about Dorje Shugden oracle. Maybe this [1]? or that [2]?

Austerlitz -- (talk) 10:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

select ename sal from emp;[edit]

select ename sal from emp; —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote in Oracle[edit]

Discussion moved from User talk:Bkonrad as this is about this page.

I have reverted your reversion of my edit of the hatnote for Oracle. The corporation is only one of a number of other uses of the word and does not belong there. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

And I have reverted it back. The corporation arguably could be the primary target -- and hatnotes with multiple links are commonly used in such situations. Hatnotes are intended to help readers and it is extremely likely that a reader typing "Oracle" in the search box is expecting to find the corporation. Forcing them through an additional link is unhelpful. See here here and here for previous discussions. The hatnote appeared to address most concerns. olderwiser 18:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The suggestion that the company is the primary sense is astonishing. On what basis do you make such an eccentric claim? DionysosProteus (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Read the archives. Do a google search for "Oracle". Look at the page view statistics for the respective pages. olderwiser 19:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
And how do you propose to separate out the common usage from the corporation in a google search? And you need to read WP:HAT more carefully. The relevant statement in Wikipedia policy is:

"When a term has a primary meaning and two or more additional meanings, the hatnote on the primary topic page should link to a disambiguation page.

may be used for this."

The example provided to illustrate proper use is: This article is about the mazelike labyrinth from Greek mythology. For other uses, see Labyrinth (disambiguation). As you can see, the version of the hatnote that I have edited on Oracle is the correct version. Accordingly, I have restored it. DionysosProteus (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And you also should read not only WP:HAT, but WP:DAB and WP:MOSDAB a little more carefully. The practice is used in cases where there may be multiple topics that are very prominently known by the title. For example, consider the hatnotes at Washington, Cambridge, Brandenburg, Bone, A, Bock, Crystal, etc. There not only is a special purpose template {{Two other uses}} for that purpose, but {{otheruses4|USE2|PAGE2|USE3|PAGE3|USE4|PAGE4|USE5|PAGE5}} also supports multiple parameters. I suggest that you self-revert your ill-advised edits -- if not because you are wrong, then because you have violated WP:3RR. olderwiser 14:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, you are the one to have violated the 3RR. Secondly, take a look at Apple, which provides the most appropriate comparison. DionysosProteus (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Narrowly defined, 3RR is more than three reverts within a 24-hour period. You are the only one of us that fell afoul of that hard limit. The difficulty at Apple is that there are actually so many other prominent uses there is little point to listing them all. Oracle is a quite different situation, as the edit history and talk page show. You should revert your edit as there is ample precedent for similar types of hatnotes (despite your narrow mis-reading of WP:HAT) and the hatnote was arrived at by consensus at the talk page in the course of discussing a page move. Your preferences and idiosyncratic interpretation of guidelines should not overrule consensus. olderwiser 16:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
You reverted at: 16:18, again at 19:13, and for a third time at 00:08, all within a 24hr period. You violated the 3RR and the only reason I did not report you is that a hatnote seems to me to be too insignificant an issue to warrant it. There are many other uses of the term "Oracle" as well, which is why the comparison with Apple is apposite. Your attempt to suggest that I have "misread" or "interpreted" WP:HAT is patently nonsense. The policy is clear and unambiguous and there is an equally clear precedent with Apple. Your parochial desire to promote the company should not override established Wikipedia policy. DionysosProteus (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
3RR is more than three. Although to be honest both of us were in flagrant violation of the spirit of 3RR. In any case, you are mistaken about WP:HAT. There are numerous counter-examples to your narrow interpretation. And WP:HAT is an editing guideline, not policy, in any case. The strictness with which you seek to interpret it is a fallacy of your own creation -- the page itself indicates it is best treated with common sense and the occasional exception. The comparison with Apple is not very applicable. Of all the things identified on Oracle (disambiguation), only the company (and it's database) and the prophetic sense are even remotely contenders as primary topic. and arguably, based purely on page view statistics and search engine hits, the company (or its database) are arguably the primary topic for the term as both have higher raw statistics in their favor than the prophetic sense. I'm not saying the company should be primary, if anything, it would indicate that the disambiguation page would go at the base name. But with Apple, in contrast, not only is there the fruit, but the computer maker (and it's iconic namesake computer products) and the Beatles-related enterprises (both the corporation and the record company). All of those would be contenders to be primary topic. And the Apple Bank also has a relatively high profile. But rather than create an excessively cluttered (and possibly POV) hatnote, it makes sense in that case to refer only the to disambiguation page. In fact, for a very long time, until 27 June 2009, the hatnote said This article is about the fruit. For the electronics and software company, see Apple Inc.. For other uses, see Apple (disambiguation). But to Oracle, the rationale for having a hatnote that specifically links to the other primary topic is that it provides a less inconvenient navigation for the many people for whom the software company is what they were intending. olderwiser 21:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


OED has:

I. In ancient Greece and Rome: the instrument, agency, or medium (usually a priest or a priestess) through which the gods were supposed to speak or prophesy; the mouthpiece of the gods. Also: the place at which such advice or prophecy was sought.
II. In extended use (in Judaism, Christianity, and other religions).
III. Figurative senses.

I suggest these three main meanings are a mater of disambiguation. Otherwise we just get a pointless list of cultures, religions and mythologies. --dab (𒁳) 14:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose this is where the proposed splits under the section "Oracles in other cultures" are coming from. Though I can see the problem I don't think the splits you have proposed would solve this issue, rather I fear they would create further confusion. Here's some thoughts. The first split, I assume for the splitting of the entire section, wouldn't be beneficial; the section isn't overly long nor is it as far unrelated to the topic as you make it out to be. It provides a brief overview of the equivalents in other cultures to broaden the topic and help navigate readers. Similar approaches are taken on other Myth pages, such as in Prometheus. In regards to the second and third spilts to the proposed Divination in Chinese culture and Divination in African traditional religion, I can't see enough information to warrant a new article. Unless of course someone is volunteering to write it. Secondly these topics would be much more appropriately linked from the 'Main article': Divination. Perhaps the subject could be expanded on there or at fortune-telling. -France3470 (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure we understand each other. You are more or less suggesting what I am proposing in the first place. I have introduced the "in other cultures" section. Before that, "Greek" was just listed as one culture among others. Of course the article can retain a brief paragraph about parallel institutions in other cultures, especially when based on references that explicitly draw such parallels. But the {{main}} article for that section would be the existing Divination article.

Of course divination in Chinese culture can remain a section redirect until there is enough material, but where should that section be? Perhaps at divination, perhaps at fortune-telling, perhaps at traditional Chinese religion, but hardly in an article about Greek polytheism. --dab (𒁳) 08:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, the article is devolving into a pointless "list of divination practices by cultural region". I think this should be split off to the divination topics, and if possible to standalone articles, before much more material piles up here. --dab (𒁳) 09:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Sorry I'm been so long in replying to this. I got side tracked by life. I'm also sorry to have created confusion on your part. When I wrote my comment I was unaware that the splits were for more pages than just oracle, hense why I muddled it all up. I've since reevaluated everything, and I think for the most part everything you're suggesting is pretty reasonable. Here's a few more thoughts on the subjects.
In terms of your most recent comment. I agree it is turning into a list. As you suggested, this information from "Oracles in other cultures" should be split off. Firstly to divination (and/or fortune-telling) and from there into it's own pages (if there is enough information). On divination and fortune-telling make sure to hatnot in the individual sections to the new 'main article' if you do go ahead and create individual pages such as 'Divination in Chinese religion'.
For oracle, I'd suggest leaving on this page one or two paragraphs that give a summary of how it occurs in other cultures with the most important thing being to link to other key terms, such as 'oracles bones' and ' Nechung Oracle'. Here also we could link to the new articles that may be created about individual cultures, though I'd just suggest linking within the body of the text as the 'main article' divination would already cover this information and link off to other articles. I also think it would be wise to completely remove the subsection headers (for example 'Hinduism' and 'Tibetan Buddhism'). This isn't really necessary for only a few sentences and it further encourages others to create lists and add in all sort of pointless factoids. Hopefully some of what I said made sense. I'd say feel free to be bold and start rearranging and splitting off information since no actual content is going to be lost merely rearanged this shouldn't be controversial. - France3470 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Tibetan Oracles[edit]

I deleted the flagged line about Dalai Lama consulting Dorje Shugen before fleeing Tibet; the dramatic story of him consulting Nechung Oracle before fleeing Tibet is well-known from his autobiography. I also added some information about other oracles that I don't know how to source: it was told to me directly by the Secretary to HH the Dalai Lama, but it's not been printed anywhere yet. Perhaps I'll try to get a brief article about it published somewhere soon and come back to add the source; in the meantime, maybe it would be best to flag it as "citation needed" and leave it be, if anything, until I can come back to it. It's definitely the truth though.Yonderboy (talk) 04:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Latter-day Saints[edit]

The tradition of the oracles of the Latter-day Saints does not seem to meet the definition of oracle in this article. The description given is as follows:

"They are the revelations from God (Acts 7:38, Romans 3:2, Hebrews 5:12.) They are the living prophets who recieve revelation (2 Samuel 16:23, 1 Peter 4:11.) And they are the holy or sacred places in which prophets recieve revelation (1 Kings 6:16; 8:6, 2 Chronicles 4:20.)

It seems to me this refers to an interpretation of scripture rather than a "prediction or a precognition of the future" (as the article's definition of "oracle" intends). Nathan Oman, in an article entitled: "'The Living Oracles': Legal Interpretation and Mormon Thought" discusses this in reference to a quote from William Blackstone: "The judges in the several courts of justice... are the depositary of the laws; the living oracles...” "The Living Oracles" of the Mormon tradition are thus normative, rather than predictive. I've removed the section of this title from the article. However, if I've got something wrong, let's discuss it here. Sunray (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Mari of the Near East vs. Basque goddess Mari Comment[edit]

The article links to the Basque goddess Mari, but the context is about a Near Eastern entity. I don't believe the text correctly linked.

The article on the Basque goddess makes no mention of divination, prediction, or any other oracular powers. She is apparently a weather goddess. The only possible connections I see are that she is related to serpents and lives in a cave. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kibi78704 (talkcontribs) 20:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Fixed by Debouch, 23:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC) by changing link to Mari, Syria. Wdchk (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Debouch and Wdchk!

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oracle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)