Talk:Uroscopy

Physiology Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to the kidneys and renal physiology.

Medicine High‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge?

The Uroscopy/Uromancy proposed merger was added in February 2010. Would someone who supports the merge provide a rationale? I tentatively oppose the merge because these seem like two distinct topics to me. Chuck (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between medieval magic and medieval science was thin at best. What a modern person might clearly see as a scientific analysis of urine and a superstitious custom would not have been so. Both were seen as objectives since clears guideline existed that taught what findings were healthy and what was not. Both were taught in medical schools. Analysis of urine (not always specific) was understood as one of the Galenic diagnostic procedures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.80.13 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And one is directed to determining the health of the patient (no matter how wrong we know the conclusions therefrom to be today) and one is not, which is what I see as the fundamental difference. If there are citations (either modern or from that era) which blur the line by using "uroscopy" for determination of things beyond the patient's health, or, conversely, "uromancy" for determination of the patient's health, I might reconsider, but until then the distinction seems to be a clear one to me. Chuck (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: one is about predicting the future at large, the other is about assessing a person's state of health. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]