Talk:Etruscan religion

message: There is a book: The Religion of the Etruscan, Erika Simon
Please use this for reference. There could be many things added to this article AND verified by the addition of some things from this book.
And remove the reference to Charles Leeland. he was not a historian. He was a folklorist and fiction writer. Venus Satanas (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A New Reference

message: Since there is so little actual information on Etruscan mythology, and so much of even that is just retellings of Greek myth, it seems excessive to have so many dozens of articles that are sure to be perpetual stubs until the end of time. Although certainly articles on the most important deities of the Etruscans, like Tinia, merit articles, would anyone object to (or support) a merge of all the lesser deities of the Etruscans (including ones who currently don't have articles at all, just redirects to the equivalent Greek or Roman god, like Turms) into this article using an organized and comprehensive list format which will allow for future expansion, but make the entries more accessible to editors by not centralizing them instead of hiding them away in countless stubs. I've had lots of success with past mergers on a smaller scale, like combining all the Greco-Roman wind gods to Anemoi; the only difference with this one will be that since there are so many lesser gods about whom there is little information, I'll use a table to improve readability—a few months ago I actually tried this same merger without a table, though that attempt was deleted in a computer crash, and while it worked OK, readability, organization, and finding the specific entries was somewhat laborious in ordinary paragraph format (even though I'm a fun of paragraphs) since it consisted of so many smaller entries, so I've been experimenting more with tables recently, and have found that they're remarkably effective at remedying all of these problems. Tables like the ones at List of Latin phrases and an interwiki-in-construction one I've been experimenting with at User:Silence/Deae have looked great. So, what do you think? If there are no objections, I'll go ahead with it. -Silence 12:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging lesser deities of Etruscans 

message: There is no such spelling of Heracles in Etruscan for an obvious fact that Etruscan lacks "o"!! And more obviously, the Etruscan name was based upon the Greek name Hēraklēs and the name is securely of Greek origin. So it begs the question why anyone would stick an "o" in there unless they're really daft. Oh I'm sorry, that was so non-Wikipedia POV of me. Well, don't care, screw it. Somebody was a dumbass and we need to talk about it ;) --Glengordon01 08:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horacle?? 

message: Where do people get this nonsense? Seriously. Where is **Horta attested? It's connection with Latin hortus is suspect considering that Latin and Etruscan are unrelated languages. So, doesn't that make *Horta a Latin deity and if so, why are we listing it here?! Ugh. If it's based on some cockamamey story of etymological folktales, whether modern or classical, we need to mark it in a seperate category with a story attached explaining its source. What's the point in having a "Wikipedia" if we're simply going to include everything into one big pile of nonsensical trash? --Glengordon01 08:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horta, made-up horse doodoo? 

message: In case no one has noticed it yet, there are way to many suns in the Etruscan pantheon and nobody is quite certain what sex the sun is either! Very different from every other culture's religion of that time. The Egyptians had Ra and it was positively male. I've never seen Ra with boobs, excuse my terminology ;) Greeks had Apollo, again quite male. So why can't the Etruscans make up their minds? Well, I'm thinkin' that it's the incompetent Etruscanologists again, having a good laugh at us minion Wicca-brainwashed masses who buy into all of their self-contradictory crap. As of yet, I'm not sure what Cauθa truly is and -θa does indeed mark female names. However, she ain't the sun. I mean, who ever heard of a male sun giving birth to a daughter... who is also the sun but female. Don't alarm bells ring off in anyone else's heads??? Is everyone doped up on Ritalin and Paxil now? C'mon, people. Let's get real. --Glengordon01 09:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cautha, how many suns does the sky have?? 

message: What horror. Long story short: The Latin name for "moon" is lunā from earlier lucnā with a "c" which is securely traced to *lukneh2 < Indo-European *leuk- "to be bright". Some idiots have obviously misread the "c" as an "s". End of story. Now, the moral of said story is: Stop reading junky pseudo-pagan websites full of garbage and go to a library. Ask the librarian to help you, for pete's sakes! For the love of Athena, help me get off this planet. --Glengordon01 09:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Losna, goddess of idiocy and an inability to research 

message: Just for the benefit of doubt, despite all the inaccuracies I've discovered above, can someone please tell me where *Vicare is known from a single Etruscan text? --Glengordon01 09:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vicare, how can I believe you now? 

message: While I recognize the word, I don't recognize it as a name of a god. The tricky thing is that, if we let our imagination get the better of us, we can abstractify gods out of every mundane word of a language. To help me believe, I'd like to see where a documented image of Alpan created by Etruscans anywhere with his name of *Alpan clearly identifying him. Since we can already confirm the existance of Turan as the goddess of Love, equaled to Aphrodite, we have some more redundancy to work out in the Etruscan pantheon. First multiple Suns and now multiple Loves! --Glengordon01 10:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alpan, a whole lotta Love 

message: What? You say you don't believe me? All you have to do is take a looky at the Piacenza Liver to know that it's wrong. There, both Cel and Cilens are mentioned. They are just not the same thing. --Glengordon01 10:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cel and Cilens, two different things 

message: I have never read of such a thing, then again, I veer clear away from books by Mayani or his ilk, kooks out to make a quick buck on paganism or politics instead of devoting themselves to logic. If the library has nothing on **Evan, the only thing retrievable online is from wishy-washy websites like [] where we are told confidently: "Evan's name means 'Time', and is related to Etruscan evi, 'duration or eternity';" Only one problem. There is no such word *evi in Etruscan!! The word for "age" is avil with an "l". In fact, having studied languages all my life, I know what this nonsense is very loosely based on: Latin aevum "age". It lingers from books made by pro-Italic Etruscanologists, even though their whole theory of a hypothetical Latin-Etruscan relationship is now very demonstratably false. Why won't these idiotic ideas die? It's like the meme that wouldn't die! Hehe. Yet, as anyone that has properly studied both Etruscan and Latin knows, the two languages are unrelated and have two distinct sets of vocabulary. So we can be certain that the author of said website, along with the entire group of wishywashies who believe that this deity ever existed without even a shred of _physical, documented proof_, choose collectively to live in a post-nuclear dark age. They probably want to suck us all in too but personally I'm not up for it. Say no to post-nuclear dark ages. --Glengordon01 10:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You should list Evan (mythology) on WP:AFD (see WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion). If it is deleted then remove from here etc. Thanks/wangi 10:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting! Thanks a lot. Hmm, now I wonder if someone took off the Tuscania Dice entry in similar fashion... grrr. The Tuscania Dice is used as proof of a certain order for Etruscan numerals so it's strange to not have an entry on it. I could swear it was there a minute ago. Anyone know what happened to it? Was anyone watching it? Funny stuff. Guess you have to laugh. --Glengordon01 06:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, a follow-up here. It turns out Evan is mentioned in a few books like Roman and European Mythologies by Yves Bonnefoy. Nonetheless, we're only told here that there's nothing known about this deity, and further it appears that the term evan which accompanies certain figures (whose pictures I have yet to see!!! ugh!) is merely assumed to be a deity name. Outside of this so-called evidence, there is nothing in actual Etruscan texts, nor in classical Greek or Roman sources. So, I suppose I can feel empathy to those that say that Evan is "sourced", but then again, what good is being sourced if your source is a fragile house of cards? --Glengordon01 16:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume you're familiar with Lambrechts' online database of Etruscan mirrors.  This mirror is one of a few (though the others have not yet been organized in CSEs yet, and therefore are not on Lambrechts...if you're really adamant about this, you could flip through Gerhard to find the others) with a figure labelled as Evan.  If you are to argue that Evan is not the character's name, you would need to provide convincing evidence why we should not take this label to be the figure's name. --Flareserif 06:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "If you are to argue that Evan is not the character's name..." No, I argue against the a baseless assumption that Evan is a valid deity in the Etruscan pantheon. But voilà, by your own admission you call the nebulous entity a "character" rather than "deity" because you yourself know that nothing has been proven whatsoever that he/she was worshipped by Etruscans. I suggest that you reexamine that mirror, and preferably find a photo of it rather than relying on loosely sketched facsimiles (ie. do you know what a secondary source is and why it's poor research?). Thanks a bunch. --Glengordon01 12:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: To add, here's a quote from Bryn Mawr Classical Review concerning "Evan" and other entities of that ilk : "The mysterious figures ALPAN, ACHVIZR, LEINTH, and EVAN change sexes with startling ease." The so-called "interchanging" of gender is overblown garbage that masks the real situation: Not all labeled personnages in Etruscan art are deities, real people, or even mythic heroes. Some represent abstract concepts personified. Precisely the same thing we see in Greek and Roman art (eg. click here) but surprisingly the archaeologists haven't clued in yet because fantasy and made-up pantheons are more marketable than the drier truth... that Evan is a non-existent deity in the true sense of the word and utter b.s. just as I stated all along. You may as well call every abstract concept from Anger to Misogyny as a "deity" and make this half-assed article the length of a full roll of toilet paper then. --Glengordon01 13:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made no argument as to the identity of Evan.  I was merely directing you toward a picture and identification of Evan.  I am aware that this is a drawing rather than a photo of the mirror itself, but it will no doubt aid you in tracking one down. --Flareserif (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evan is bullsh*t and never existed 

message: It's Roman, not Etruscan. Romans are a seperate people. The Etruscan language doesn't even have a "b" sound so what then is this supposedly Etruscan name based on? Are we supposed to assume something imaginary like **fepru? I don't think so. Bunch of crap! I eradicated it. --Glengordon01 10:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Februus, ain't Etruscan 

message: The word is tiur **always** with an "r". The word is without a doubt "moon" or "month". It is used to specify the date of various events countless times on the Liber Linteus, and again, always with "r". Don't slice off sounds just because they don't fit into your narrow pet-theories, people! So the twat who thought then that **tiu(r) was linked to the Anglo-Saxon god Tiw has hopefully gotten meds for his affliction. --Glengordon01 10:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiur, more nutty pagan wordgames 

message: There seems to be confusion about Etruscan grammar. There were two suffixes for the genitive case, -s and -l. The Etruscan genitive case helped to express aspects of possession (possessive) or origin of movement (ablative), sometimes even to signal the agent of action (agentive). When we add -s to the name and get Θufltha, it means "of/belonging to/from Thufltha". Therefore, we can't say that "Thufltha" and "Thuflthas" are equivalent names for this deity. The name is **only** Thufltha in the end. --Glengordon01 11:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thufltha becomes ''Thuflthas'' in the genitive 

message: If I recall, I remember finding the source of "Nortia" not from any existing Etruscan inscriptions, but from a Roman author recounting the story of priests and a wall-nailing ritual to mark the passage of time. It would be nice if I could remember what author spoke of this. Does anyone know which author this is from? It would be helpful to all of us to mention when sources are unverified hearsay from Roman/Greek classical authors, and when they are **direct** evidence in inscriptions. It's important to disambiguate this because naturally authors can't be trusted as easily as physical texts in the Etruscan language. --Glengordon01 11:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nortia, source should be explicit 

message: Stated on this page was "Rendered either Ati Cel ('Father Earth') or Apa Cel ('Mother Earth')." I object. Pick one. Where is this attested? Oh yes, it must be in one of Mayani's dreadful books. Sorry, that freak doesn't count as a scholar. So where else? --Glengordon01 12:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cel, father AND mother?? 

message: Article at "Charun" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charun mentions that Charun was replaced by Greek Charon when Trojans entered Italy. I though that that was more or less a myth (popularised in the Aeneid). 
--T@nn 
------
It's a lie. 
*In Greek, Tyrrhēnos or Tyrsēnos means "Etruscan", while "Trojan" should be Troikos (from Troia "Troy"). In Latin, Tuscus or Etruscus is "Etruscan" whereas Troianus is "Trojan". They are clearly distinct.
*It was the Tyrrhēnoi (Etruscans) that entered Italy from Lydia (in SW Turkey), not the Trojans of Troy (in NW Turkey), as stated by Herodotus in Histories. 
*Finally, since Charōn ) means "brightness" in Greek, Etruscan Charun is already a Greek loan. Charun replaced by Charon?? Egad, total nonsense since we can see that Charun is already a Hellenic import! The only reason why Etruscans replaced Greek "omega" with "u" is simply because the Etruscan language lacks "o" as well as any long vowels that Greek has. See Etruscan language for details. 
--Glengordon01 09:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trojans into Italy? 

message: I found yet another spurious claim here. This time it's about how Charun "kills people" with his hammer. Look it, people, yo'll are gonna have to start verifying what you're editing! Total garbage as far as I'm concerned. 
I had never thought much before about Charun's hammer, quite frankly, but upon careful reflection there's no doubt that the "hammer" is in fact a labrys, a very ancient symbolism with ties to Greece, the Aegean and Turkey. Charun isn't killing anyone and no artifacts I know of show this. I defy anyone to cough up a **tangible Etruscan artifact** that shows this claim is not yet another internet legend. --Glengordon01 11:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pot, kettle? -Silence 01:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text: And what value does your input have other than to fuel conflict? Stick to Etruscan, not pots nor kettles. --Glengordon01 03:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charun, that ain't a hammer in his pocket 

message: Seriously, this is nonsense. How could this possibly be in evidence? I'm taking this out and if anyone can provide a reputable source of this claim, they will win a virtual can of tuna. --Glengordon01 11:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vanth, inhaling good demons, eh? 

message: Semla, in the Etruscan deity list, links to a discussion of a Scandinavian type of pastry.
--T@nn
------
Hahaha, how funny and yet... sad. I added links to all the names but evidently we discovered an easter egg surprise. Thanks for noticing. Semla seems to exist on a mirror of the 4th century BCE with "Phuphluns" and "Apulu" so we know it's not made up at least. So I guess that means that these Swedish tarts will have to move over to make room for the Etruscans. I think I know how ;) --Glengordon01 17:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semla link 

message: This link leads to an article about celluloid. --T@nn
Wow, thanks T@nn. Haha, one nevers know what Wikipedia will turn up if one adds links blindly <:) Guess we need to add another link because Cel is listed on the Piacenza Liver artifact. What?? How is there is no link to the famous Piacenza Liver artifact?? Ugh, well anyways, you can learn more on Haruspex about that artifact... Oh dear: "The practice of haruspicy, the name for this kind of divination, was said to have originated among the ancient Etruscans." More nonsense, I can see this is gonna be a long night of revisions again :P --Glengordon01 02:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cel link 

message: I perused for myself some of the links. I found another. Apparently Turan and Turan (mythology) are different things entirely. --Glengordon01 03:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turan link 

message: (From http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/tuchulcha.html)
:*http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/tuchulcha1.jpg
Notice muscular arms and beard. Is it a She-hulk? Don't think so. It's positively male without any shred of doubt.
:*http://www.mysteriousetruscans.com/tuchorcus.jpg
Notice the beard again. Still positively male.
--Glengordon01 04:27, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not Tuchulcha.  All sources I have found (de Grummond, Richardson, Barker & Rasmussen)say that the picture below is the only surviving image.  This appears to be Charun. --Scottandrewhutchins 05:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with de Grummond and Richardson that she appears to have breasts.  What you're seeing as beard I'm seeing as neck, particularly of a figure desrcibed as having a head like both a donkey and a vulture. --Scottandrewhutchins 05:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tuchulcha, bearded man or bearded woman? 

message: Well well...
To both parties:
#Try to calm yourselves. Take a break of a few days and then return here.
#There is no need of Personal Attacks here, we're discussing contents, not persons - see WP:PA.
#I've submitted a Request for Comment for the content, so somebody not involved in this dispute can help me with the contents, because my knowledge of the matter is very low.
#I'll try to mediate this case informally, I hope we can settle down everything with an informal process of mediation. All right?
Happy Editing by Snowolf(talk)CONCOI on  10:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hiya glengordon. I just have a couple of passing comments now that I am getting more experience on Wikipedia. First of all, the admins represent the Wikipolice. Without them what do you suppose this encyclopedia would be? Not at all an encyclopedia. So, it is a necessary evil. I know they have their limitations and faults. The same can be said of any "police." I don't know of any solution yet to the police paradox, of asking persons to enforce our morals who are no more moral than we. Too bad we are incapable of policing ourselves, except possibly for a few saints. Second, I read the article you linked above. It is not a new argument. Here again it is paradoxical. The "experts" can be just as ignorant and stubborn as the rest of us, but they use their supposed "expertise" as a bully pulpit. There is something innately wrong with delegating all our responsibilities, intellectual or other, to "experts." Who is to blame if they fail? On the other hand we cannot do without specialization of labor, which "expertise" is. I don't know of any solution to this paradox, either. You overwhelm us with insoluble paradoxes. I would say, the best thing is to learn the art of cool debate. If I did not think you were worth addressing I would not address you. Don't lose hope, which looks before and not behind.Dave 14:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation 

message: I've been working on this list of mythological characters and I agree a list would be nice. One has to be really careful to get it right however so I've been relying on what the professionals say. It needs work of that sort. Also, I notice the various articles linked in contain duplicate or near duplicate material. The solution it seems to me is that all interpretation belongs in the associated aticle. Also there were no citations so I've been putting them in, so far almost exclusively from the Bonfante's dictionary. I do cross-check with Pallottino. I notice also that much of it is speculation filled in by the author. Thou shalt not speculate in an encyclopedia. Anything you could say here has been said by somebody, but as I say that material belongs in the linked articles. I doubt the author(s) realized the magnitude of this task. It's a pretty big list. I agree we do need it though so what I propose is to break it out into a separate article. There are a good many "list" articles on Wikipedia. By the way the Bonfantes' huge list is a condensation from the even huger material they looked at. Etruria was not built in a day. So let me know if you have any serious objection to breaking out the list and I will work on it while I wait, adding items, correcting the Greek, Latin, Etruscan and English errors, and removing the speculations, and looking for relevant citations. I considered 2-column, but I don't think so. One column takes up the whole page.Dave 04:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one seem to disagree I'm going to go ahead and split the huge list off to its own article. A shorter list would of course be appropriate here. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Time for a split already

message: After working with this for a while I think I see what is happening. There are a lot of people anxious to do original work in this field but they aren't trained in it. I will call this the Ignatius Donneley or Atlantis syndrome. This is what you would expect, as the Etruscan religion emphasized prophecy and divination. (Maybe they vanished in a puff of smoke). I would say, they are exploiting the cultic, magical, superstitious side of the thing, they want to get their name and work before the public, and they can afford to put up their own websites. Most of their work is highly speculative. 
I would certainly not rely on most of the Internet glossaries. What happens is, they all steal from each other, round Robin, and as no one has a foundation in serious scholarship, the baloney gets passed around. Beware Internet sources in this field (but there are always good ones of course). The main common mistake is making assumptions to fill in what you do not know. If it isn't known, it isn't known, and your assumption does not "know" it by fiat.
One wrong path is to view mythological characters as the late pagan writers did, a set character with set attributes, and all you have to do is identify it. A divinity can appear in any form at any time. It does not have to comply with any set image. A second wrong path is, once you have made the wrong identification, to attribute the attributes of the wrong identity to the wrongly identified deity. This is the source of the solar baloney noted above and also the goddess of death baloney. Have you noticed that? Too many goddesses of death. I know Greek and Latin names were used a lot by the Etruscans. However, there is no one-to-one correspondance. There was no Etruscan god of war, Martis. The Romans took an Etruscan name and made Mars out of it. There are also too many gods of war. The Etruscans did not have a native pantheon or roster of fixed gods worked up in literature. Anything in that direction is on a Greek template.
And last but not least are the amateur decipherers who want to make the Etruscan word say what they think it says in their candidate for "decipherment". Etruscan does not need any decipherment. With a few more bilinguals and long texts the issue will lose relevance as we will be able to read Etruscan. Even the experts say the bulk of Etruscan material is still under the ground.
So I would say as others have said in this discussion personal research is a sine qua non of any work you do or plan to do on the Etruscans on Wikipedia. The speculators heve put so much baloney on there now it will take some time to straighten it all out.Dave 15:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Internet speculations

message: You know, I think I like the list format better than the table here. Ordinarily I like tables but the list seems more attractive and easier to use (once all the speculation is out of it).Dave 19:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List format

message: ::
.
.Revert these removals.Why was everything removed?Megistias (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone revertMegistias (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert these 

message: I worked on this almost 2 years ago. It was not in good shape then and hasn't improved since then. I do notice, however, certain trends have been started. First, someone hates the concept of Etruscan "religion" and is removing all mention of it. They are tagging all presentation of "religion". To you I say, that is a vain effort. This is religion - polytheism no doubt. Fine, you are not a polytheist. Your types had their day with the Christian fathers of late antiquity. Monotheists don't need you to defend them. I'm putting back the religion concept, regardless of what you may think of polytheism. We previous writers left an opening for you - we failed to put in the footnotes. There are no lack of references, believe me. The idea is to treat these philosophies and religions with objectivity; otherwise, there is no sense in even bothering; we shall never get along. However, it does not bother me that there is an article only on Etruscan mythology and not on Etruscan religion, as it is often the custom to discuss Roman and Greek religion under mythology. No religion can do without its mythology, I don't care what it is. If you think you don't have any mythology, maybe you should work on Wikipedia more often. I will just put religion under mythology (gradually).
Second, the article originally had a list of Etruscan mythical and legendary characters. In your explorations of the nature of religion, whoever you are, you decided to break out the list from the article, then you decided to break out the Greek from the Etruscan. That is not an entirely valid approach as the Etruscans turned Greek figures into Etruscan and Roman ones and vice versa. However, it is possible, and someone might want a list of core Etruscan figures. I can see that so I am not going to oppose it. BUT - you didn't finish the job! So now we have the same material repeated in three different articles. At this point I am inclined to help you finish the game. That means I will be doing deletions and moving stuff around. Don't get excited. From what I can see the whole thing bogged down in controversy half way through and now is just sitting there. I shall give reasons for whatever I do. Let's finish the game. Pitch in or fold.Dave (talk) 09:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Finish the game!

message: I'll try and put a copy edit tag on it soon.  It's an important article, needs clean-up badly.--LeValley 02:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs some heavy duty copy editing 

message: I tried finding a template more directly saying "simplify the text" but this was the closest one I could find. Anyway:
I consider myself educated and with a fair grasp of the English language, but I didn't get two sentences into this article before I was completely lost. What's a "diachronically continuous population"? The term "floruit" goes unexplained. 
To me this tells me the article needs to be rewritten. Simplified as in "using less fancy words", at least in the introduction.
Regards,
CapnZapp (talk) 15:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'm not scared of big words, but I agree with CapnZapp: "diachronically" is an extraordinarily pretentious word to use in the first sentence of an article on Etruscan mythology aimed at a general readership. Floruit can be linked (and now has been). The fact that you and I know Greek and Latin and can define them and provide etymologies doesn't mean they're readily accessible to WP's users. However, a bigger problem is that if a person encountered the first paragraph here out of context, you'd think it introduced an article on Etruscan civilization or the Etruscans — it's supposed to be about 'mythology.' See WP:LEDE. The topic of the article is supposed to be made explicit by a bold phrase, customarily in the first sentence, thus providing a focus. I might argue, however, that this article is misnamed, and ought to be called Etruscan religion. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "... in this case indicates there is significant continuity between the historic populations of the area". This doesn't clarify a lot to me. What would be a discontinuous population? Continuity can mean a lot of different things in different subjects - and I don't know any meaning that works here. If the "diachronically continuous" remark makes any sense at all, it badly needs clarification. If it doesn't, it should be removed. In any case, it doesn't appear very relevant in sentence 1 of the article. Drictelt (talk) 22:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  the "too much jargon" template 

message: Ani (mythology) shouldn't direct you to this page, but to Ani (Etruscan God). Michael! (talk) 20:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Will fix this. Actually, there is a confusing stub on the deity, so that's probably the place to direct attention now. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Improper redirection

message: The babylonian haruspex who divined by the liver was called a baru. one of the Etruscan words for priest who divined by the liver was 'maru'. Could they be linked? Certain Etruscan name forms seem to indicate a possible link with Akkadian or Sumerian. Maybe they were refugees or settlers from Babylon who came to italy via Lemnos (based on Lemnian language links and their patheon). ??who knows. It may be a fruitful avenue of enquiry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.190.193 (talk) 01:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Babylonian 'baru' the Etruscan 'maru'? 

message: Dreading to open a can of worms here, I'm wondering why this page is called Etruscan mythology when it's really about their religion. An article on their mythology should cover things like stories of their gods and heoes, that is, myths. See Roman mythology.- Eponymous-Archon (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this page called Etruscan mythology? 

message: — Assignment last updated by SaxicolousArtume (talk) 21:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Roman Religion

message: I don't know which group of gods she should be added to, but she should be mentioned somewhere. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of [[Thesan]]