Talk:Anthropomancy

Splanchomancy

This definition has been on the page since the outset, but I cannot find a definition for it from a primary source. Google result numbers are not always a stellar justification for legitimacy but of the less than 600 results, a cursory examination leads me to believe not one of them is a source from historical literature. A Google N-Gram search reveals copious examples of anthropomancy but 0 for splanchomancy. 160.33.43.15 (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of anthropomancy

Tread carefully here. Be aware that false accusations of human sacrifice were a standard technique in the ancient world (Greece, Rome, etc.) for demonising foreigners. Accusations of anthropomancy were, in using today's terms, by-and-large part of racist vocabulary. Don't always fall for it. 82.44.82.167 (talk) 16:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that the Julian the Apsotate citation remains until we get a source for the Anthopomancy reference. If you do a google search for anthopomancy about 70% of the sites all give the Julian the Apostate story of human sacrifice. It would be better if it remained until we get more material one way or another. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.24.210 (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I would prefer that the Julian the Apsotate citation remains until we get a source for the Anthopomancy reference." What? Are you asking to keep an unreferenced statement until someone will find a reference for it? It should be the opposite: when you find a good source come and insert the citation... --Sjappé (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a reference somewhere or else the google search wouldnt list Julian's use of anthopomancy in the top ten. Thats why it should remain. (but obviously with the dispute over the origin of the story. Also Sjappe i dont think you have the place to remove edits when you dont even have the courage to register has a Wikipedia user and you havent identified you expertise on the matter. I am reinserting it until there is materal one way or another. If you dispute this register with Wikipedia and make your complaint official. This will help to get more editors to search out for a decent reference.--Redblossom (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? The burden of the proof is on you, who are inserting the text without reference, not on me. Let me know where to fill an official complaint, but for the time being I shall remove the text. --Sjappé (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys, calm down. This is clearly an edit war. Please stop reverting each other and mind the three revert rule. As I infer from the history of the article, Sjappe placed cn tags over the disputed content, then removed the disputed content without giving it enough time (the fact tags where dated May 2008 and the removal was also during May 2008) to be sourced properly, taking advantage of some edits by Redblossom. The reality of those assertions is this. There are at least 3 reliable third-party secondary sources that contain the information. (Please see the analysis of the sources that I've made in the Occult Project talk page). The only thing against the info provided by those sources is that some parts of it are not sustained by the source itself. The reliable sources guideline states that if a source cannot sustain itself then it cannot sustain the Wikipedia. So, my suggestion to Redblossom is to review the sources, filter the info that is not sustained, and add the sustained info. --Legion fi (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]