Talk:Caduceus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:26, 10 April 2008

Origins

A parasite called the guinea worm has to be slowly wound out of the body twist by twist around a stick or rod. If just pulled the worm will break in two and die, causing a fatal infection. This was discovered long ago,perhaps thousands of years ago, and is thought to be what the Caduceus symbol for medicine represents. --Mike Spenard 02:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bible Origins

There is also good reason to believe that the origin of the caduceus could be from the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament to Christians). In Numbers 21:4-9, Moses brings a curse of snakes on the Israelites. He removes the curse by placing a golden serpent on a staff, which the victim of a snake bite can touch or just look at and be healed.

Submitted by Birney Dibble, M.D.

Yes, there seems to be evidence that the Aaron's rod and Moses' rod had a "rebirth" in Greek and Roman mythologies. I would like to see more written about that as well. --Kvasir 07:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The figure 8?

Quote from article: "The number eight is important to the practicioners of judicial astrology." I clicked the link looking for details on that, but the article doesn't mention the figure 8 at all. If it really is important, perhaps someone could/should add the relevant information there? Retodon8 12:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be mentioned that it is the oposite of the orobourous or infinity symbol? Caduceus symbolises fixed points, beginging and end where as orobourous is infinity they are only used as paraels in some anime but still. --82.45.120.125 02:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of that and the surrounding material. First of all, it's geometrically wrong: the caduceus snakes cross several times, but there is only one crossing in the figure-eight or the analemma. Second, it is dangerous to so boldly draw a connection between the caduceus and the connotations of those other symbols without historical evidence. Melchoir 19:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)--65.5.181.168 21:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)--65.5.181.168 21:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)--65.5.181.168 21:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Restructure

This article has now been restructured to put the confusion between the caduceus and the rod of Asceplius beyond doubt. The use of the caduceus has no basis in medicine and using it in this way is simply incorrect (if widespread, especially in the US). For more info, please read the relevant sections in both articles! Owain.davies 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iris

I looked on the Iris(Mythology) page and saw that she apparently is also associated with the caduceus. If this is true, than it should probably be noted in this article, if not, than I'll edit it out of her page. I've never been able to find much info on Iris, but maybe someone else will have better luck. ---24.192.224.242 16:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Hermesscholar[reply]

I think we'd need a citation in order to support putting this on here. If i get a moment, i'll hunt round to see if google finds anything. Owain.davies 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it helps, but the Iris article itself uses Image:Winged_goddess_Cdm_Paris_392.jpg which clearly shows a goddess holding a kerykeion wand and a vase. The description of the picture seems unsure whether it is Iris or Nike however. --AntonChanning (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medical "mistake" vs "inaccuracy" ... NPOV

I think calling the medical use of a caduceus a "mistake" as this article repeatedly does is a violation of NPOV. Certainly "confusion" is applicable, and it's true the caduceus was not traditionally a medical symbol, but it has been used as such in North America for over a century now. Since we're an encyclopedia, it's time to be descriptive about its use and not prescriptive. The caduceus is legitimately used by many medical groups in North America, albeit historically inaccurate. I myself am the manager of a free clinic in Kentucky and we use a caduceus in our symbol, not because we're ignorant or mistaken, but because it's commonly recognized. I'll change the article slightly to reflect this. - Draeco 04:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to disagree, as using a caduceus is clearly a mistake, but i've looked at your edits, and they do maintain the correct sense of the caduceus being incorrect, so i'm happy. Incidentally, why do you still use the caduceus if you know it to be wrong? Would patients not recognise the rod of asclepius in the same way? Owain.davies 06:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, it wouldn't be recognised; I found this page on random search, and had never before heard that the common NA usage of caduceus as a medical symbol was wrong. I'm not sure I'd ever even seen the correct rod of asclepius before today. --Jamoche 09:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that's all the more reason to ensure that it is clearly shown as being a mistake, to help the education process. As the article says, the majority of physicians in a survey use the RoA rather than caduceus, but commercial organisations tend to use caduceus. Owain.davies 10:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Professional vs. Commercial Organizations

"A 1992 survey of American health organisations found that 62% of professional associations used the rod of Asclepius, whereas in commercial organisations, 76% used the caduceus."

Can someone clarify the difference here between professional and commercial organizations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.18.96 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use in Medicine

I have heard a rumor that the caduceus was originally mistaken for the proper medical symbol after it was used on early ambulances, because of its connection with speed. Has anyone else heard this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.190.75 (talk) 01:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Caduceus includes a section discussing examples of usage. This section notes universities, investment houses, and a video game. Do you feel these are advertisements as well? What makes one "example of usage" an advertisement while another is not? Besides the addition of a photograph, what makes my addition different?

Adding a picture and one line of text (without external links or commentary) in an appropriately labelled "examples of usage" section is not an advertisement by any stretch. If I had linked to external websites, online stores, or reviews about how yummy the wine is, then you'd be correct about advertising. But I did not. I've reverted your edit. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shift6 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Template:Unsigned: Autosigned by SineBot[reply]

A large illustration of a bottle of "Caduceus" wine with a "reference": "*Tool front man Maynard James Keenan owns and operates an Arizona winery called "Caduceus Cellars." is a plug for a product that is wholly unsuitable at the article Caduceus. This abuse comes, as this User quite frankly says, from permitting other marginal references to trash the article. I refuse to get into a rixe over this myself: anyone care one way or the other? --Wetman (talk) 17:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is unwarranted commercial plugging. Keep the image off. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 18:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the relevant wiki policy: WP:Spam. Let me highlight what I believe are the salient points as to why this is not an advertisement.

From the above, "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." My single line of text and photograph did not do any of these things: neither solicited business, nor promoted a product, nor contained sales-oriented language, nor contained external links.

Also from the above, "Elements of articles about products or services with brand names can also be combined under a common topic or category to facilitate unbiased and collaborative information by including information about the competition and about different alternatives." Thus, instead of summary deletion, perhaps my one line could have been rewritten from a NPOV. Except that it already contained a NPOV, therefore didn't really need rewriting in the first place.

Now let me review, from the above link, the section "How not to be a spammer", and I will list the things that my one line of text and photograph again did not do. "Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes." Nope. "If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place." Nope again. And actually I'm frustrasted again and not going to write any more. I've made my case based on the clearly defined policy of wiki, rather than a couple wiki users "feelings".

I'm honestly, actually, non-trolling-ly curious how, for example, Owain.davies see "unwarranted commercial plugging" in my single line of text or photograph. Which part? Where's the plug?

Vote to keep, natch. --shift6 (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]