Talk:Caduceus

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)

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_worm#Cultural_references

This is only "thought" by those who have not read anything about the Serpent as a widespread emblem of divine knowledge and oracular prophecy. Noted just so that innocent imaginations aren't set aflame here.--Wetman (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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 bronze serpent on a staff, which the victim of a snake bite can touch or just look at and be healed. (( Indeed the Staff with a serpent was very symbolic of Yeshua the Messiah, and cleansing from impurities. This was adopted by pagan culture all the way to central Europe. The mythological representation is in order to parallel Hebrew Scripture in the First Covenant(Bible).

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)

I believe that story would be in reference to the Rod of Asclepius, a different but similar symbol which is mentioned in this article. ~cailan (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The confusion between the two, which is a modern one, is also noted. Far from being the "origin", the Hebrew tradition represents one local variant of widespread Ancient Near Eastern myth and cult, which also affected archaic Greek myth.--Wetman (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually God established it. He is not mythological. Which means fiction or fantasy. Ldcrowder (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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

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)

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)

I also noticed that it is sometimes seems difficult to distinguish Nike from Iris. Some identify Nike on a particular piece of pottery, and yet the female figure has wings and a caduceus. How do you tell one from another? See this and this. —Kanodin (talk to me / slap me) 05:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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

I was taught as a child that mythical Hermes was the deliverer of healing, his speed essential to efficacious remedy. As an adult, that myth (excuse the oxymoron) rings true, and Hermes' iconography appears to bear out his association with healing from the time of the origin of his myth. In point: Hermes, identified by his Caduceus, appears on many extant lekythos, typically with Athena. It never made sense to me that lekythos were for storing simply oil. If they stored oil-based remedies (aromatherapy oils in base, to put a too-fine modern point on it) that makes much more sense to me, and what better label for such remedies than Hermes and Athena (that is speed and wisdom which sounds like a pictogram for "health aid" or "remedy" to me). Even though the caduceus (as the identifier of Hermes and hence of medication) was a symbol of healing, it was not originally serpents at all, but a modified herders' tool. That is clear on many lekythos, at least until near the 4th Century BCE. I think the upper part of the caduceus was made into intertwined snakes and surmounted by wings when ancient druggists expanded its use from an identifier of medication to also include the makers of medication; the tame (intertwined) snakes representing medicine manufacture (venom and snake fat [true snake oil--see Wikipedia entry for snake oil, where meaning as bogus from false claims and no actual snake oil in product] were early raw materials in medication manufacture), and the wings (also a symbol of Hermes, but hitherto attached to his boots and maybe his hat) added as well to indicate quick relief. Once the snakes-and-wings caduceus became the norm as a symbol for both drugs and druggists, it is easy to see how it also became the symbol of ancient battlefield medics (the equivalent of today's EMTs), deliverers of medication and speedy healing, and, when a person was beyond cure, staying with them until death (Hermes guiding souls to the Underworld). The adoption by American military physicians of the caduceus is entirely in keeping with its symbolism from ancient times, and the caduceus evolution in America to representing the field of medicine generally is in keeping with the caduceus' historical medical continuum. I would love it if someone were to edit this article in keeping with my thinking, above. To me, it is a Yankee Doodle to claim that military physicians--by definition precise, well-educated people--made an ignorant, mistaken choice for their symbol, and the insult needs to be corrected.2606:6000:669C:4700:290A:1591:8945:B59D (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hmmm, mistake would be the correct term, as one symbol has been mistaken for the other, inaccurate isn't really right. I mean, people may know what it really is, but still use it because it's been used for a while, but the use still originates from a mistake. 88.107.237.42 (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Our anonymous poster is correct. There is no "inaccuracy": the one is simply mistaken for the other. Wikipedia, which outlines the history of many symbols and ideas, is not a vehicle for perpetuating even widely held misconceptions, wherever correct information is reputably published. Sourced information earns more respect than this. --Wetman (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't this this issue is quite settled. There's a whole section regarding the confusion which reasonably presents two sides of the argument whether or not the caduceus is a valid medical symbol. However, in the summary, it is written, "The caduceus is sometimes erroneously used as a symbol for medicine." I think using "erroneously" violates NPOV. Nytewing07 (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

"Erroneously" merely reports the factual error. There is nothing "unsettled" nor is there any "issue" here. Why is "neutral point-of-view" invoked? This is simply a case of cultural literacy, which is always a relative rather than an absolute characteristic, is it not? --Wetman (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, the Caduceus *is* the medical symbol. Hermes is, among other things, the messenger of death. It is only right that the occupation dealing most directly with death should have the Caduceus as its symbol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.207.247.50 (talk) 03:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, the Caduceus is a symbol sometimes erroneously used to signify medicine or medical practice. As has been pointed out above, cultural literacy (or rather its absence) comes into play. I'll grant that the symbol does accurately represent much of contemporary medical practice, but that's not because it is a symbol of medicine - quite the contrary. Such deeply satisfying irony will elude most, but not all readers. In any case the error is a fact, while attempts to defend the howling mistake - particularly those invoking its current use as a medical symbol - are usually rather transparent face-saving attempts on the part of those who deploy the symbol in error (why change your sign and print new cards when you can instead edit the Wikipedia article and claim it isn't an error at all?). As I mentioned, the exquisite irony apparent in the fact that the wrong symbol is used to represent medicine, and yet it is the right symbol because it's wrong, will be lost on most... Much like the irony in the claim that it is "the" medical symbol because doctors deal "most directly with death". Happily, including such revisionist twaddle would require citation. In the meantime, the content in this article is balanced and accurate enough without it. --Picatrix (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Picatrix that NPOV doesn't come in to play here as the error is a fact (and well traceable to specific causes as outlined in the article) and this is identified, cited and referenced. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of words and symbols change with times and to stubbornly refuse to admit that violates NPOV (even if based on an original mistake). Modern medical organizations do in practice use the caduceus as a symbol representing medicine, and have been doing so for at least the past century. They use the symbol in large part as it is well recognized as a symbol of medicine (especially in America). A neutral rephrasing would be of the sort: "The caduceus is sometimes used as a symbol for medicine. This modern usage has no relation to the meanings of the original symbol based on Greek mythology. This likely arose from erroneously confusing the caduceus with classical symbol of medicine, the rod of Asclepius, which has only a single snake and no wings." For example, check the definition of caduceus at m-w.com: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/caduceus "an insignia bearing a caduceus and symbolizing a physician" or look at other results from google dictionary: http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en%7Cen&q=caduceus&hl=en . A significant number of definitions note its modern connotations are associated with medicine, with no connotations of this modern usage being incorrect. To continue with the current phrasing, please provide citations demonstrating that modern usage of the caduceus (and not its origin) is truly erroneous. Would it be correct to go to the article for swastika and claim all meanings associated with Nazism are erroneous as they aren't true to the pre-20th century meanings? Jimbobl (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure your argument is entirely logical as the dimension of time does not change the original error. Yes, the symbol is used, but out of context. If you look at some of the information and citations, you can see that the majority of medical professionals use the correct Rod of Asclepius whereas the commercial sector perpetuate the caduceus. The article also includes journal articles explaining that it is indeed erroneous. unless you can come up with a citation better than google dictionary to say that it is not erroneous (and preferably a journal article) to meet WP:V, then you are peddling original research ("has no relation to the meanings of the original symbol") or synthesis ("several dictionaries fail to mention it"). The article goes to some length to explain the confusion, but at the end of the day an error is an error. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 17:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I think your use of the swastika as your example is a great example of Godwin's law in action! OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 17:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The meaning of a word/symbol does change over time, often due to inaccuracies being propagated. Take for example, Arabic numerals: 0..9. The symbols are not Arabic in origin, as Hindus introduced the Arabs to the notation, who then introduced it to the Europeans. However, if I were trying to describe Arabic numerals for some purpose, it would be counterproductive to use the relatively unknown term "Hindu numerals" (though I may note as an aside that Arabic numerals are actually Hindu in origin). Similarly, take atoms derived from the Greek Atomist movement where atoms are the indivisible most fundamental state of matter. We now know modern atoms are in fact composed of protons, neutrons and electrons (and the protons and neutrons are composed of quarks). We won't change the terminology as it became common.

I can see medical institutions choosing to incorporate Caduceus instead of the rod of Asclepius as part of their logo to the public, even if they are fully aware that only one is associated with medicine in Greek mythology. This is because the caduceus has become widely recognized (in modern North America at least) as a symbol of medicine. I would think a the Merrium-Webster dictionary would be a reasonable (tertiary) source that is apt to use in summarizing sentences. To summarize, we agree on three points. (1) The caduceus symbol originally represented heralding and was not associated with medicine in Greek mythology. (2) In North America, it is often used as a symbol representing medicine. (3) The original use of the caduceus to represent medicine likely originated from its similarity to the Rod of Asclepius. I think all of these points are objective NPOV facts. However, I strongly disagree that those who currently choose to use the caduceus as a symbol for medicine are doing so erroneously, due to continued confusion with the rod of Aclepius. To be in error, they would have to make some sort of claim they are using an ancient Greek symbol that represents medicine. Instead they use a symbol they co-opted that has taken on the modern meaning of representing medicine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbobl (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The article already indicates that the caduceus is a symbol that is sometimes used to represent medicine or medical practice. Regardless, as another editor observed: at the end of the day an error is an error. Furthermore, the caduceus is still frequently used to represent commerce, entirely in keeping with its associations, as has already been pointed out in the article. The 'argument' you are attempting to present re: NPOV comes down to this: a mistake has been made, and some people keep on making it, so let's not call it a mistake. This is as laughable as it is insubstantial. As for your mention of numerals, one feels compelled to point out that the name of the numerals in your example have changed, not the meaning or significance of the numerals. Hence the example is not relevant: we are not talking about someone calling the Rod of Asclepius a Caduceus (or vice versa, though this mistake is often made as well); both symbols are here called by their proper names, it is their significance that is in question. The Hindu-Arabic numerals 0-9 continue to represent the numbers we call one, two and three, regardless of whether we term the system of numeration Arabic, Hindu-Arabic, or Hindu. People who deploy the caduceus as a symbol of medicine are implicitly indicating that the symbol is the symbol of medicine (i.e. they use it to indicate medicine or medical practice), despite the fact that it has a long history as a symbol of commerce (and is broadly attested as having that significance to the present day). As for atoms, again we have a comparison that is not apposite, as no other, more accurate alternative for the term "atom" continues to be used alongside it - and in any case here we have an example of a change in scientific knowledge that expands our understanding of the thing we call an atom, and have always called an atom.

As Taylor points out in White Coat Tales: Medicine's Heroes, Heritage and Misadventures (pp 207-208):

Friedlander has written an informative book on the symbol of medicine, tracing the missteps leading to the current confusion. Most of the mistakes occurred in the 19th century, and a key error took place in 1871 when the U.S. surgeon general designated the caduceus as the seal of the Marine Hospital Service, destined to become the U.S. Public Health Service in 1889. Gershen (p. 45) states that the change was for aesthetic reasons, whereas Friedlander attributes the adoption of the caduceus by the Marine Hospital Service "because of its relationship with merchant seamen and the maritime industry." Then in 1902, the Army Medical Corps also adopted the caduceus as its symbol, citing the fact that Hermes the messenger at times brought a message of peace.

We may arguably say that the current heraldic muddle thus arises with the surgeon general's 1871 decision. Today, there are calls to clarify the symbol and to move to a uniform use of the Aesculapian staff to symbolize medicine. One group calling for the use of the historically correct symbol is the Minnesota Medical Association, whose director of communications is quoted as saying, "If it's got wings on it, it's not really the symbol of medicine; some may find it hard to believe, but it's true. It's something like using the logo for the National Rifle Association when referring to the Audubon Society". [Emphasis Added]

--Picatrix (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Stongly agree. Although it may have originally been a mistake, this symbol is generally accepted as a medicine symbol. Many state health departments even use the symbol on their seals. 71.100.1.129 (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The choice of the caduceus was no mistake or confusion between the caduceus and the staff of Aesculapius, but you have to understand the history behind its selection. It was first used on the half chevron of Hospital Stewards in 1851 (War Department General Orders 53, 1851). At that time there was no association between the caduceus and medicine. Ten years later the U.S. Army Medical Department was using the staff of Aesculapius on their coat of arms concurrent with the use of the caduceus on the Hospital Stewards half-chevron. The caduceus was chosen because there was no symbol to identify a Soldier providing a non-combat function on the battlefield - the First Geneva Convention adopted the Red Cross in 1864, and the U.S. didn't become a signatory until 1882. The herald's staff of Hermes and Mercury was chosen because it had been used in the past as a truce symbol for negotiation. The caduceus was used as a symbol by the Marine Hospital Service (incorporated a caduceus into its seal in 1871, designed by John Woodworth, a former Army doc), later the Public Health Service. Woodworth designed the seal, again, before there was any association between the caduceus and the practice of medicine, aside from Woodworth's personal association with the Hospital Corps. In 1902, the U.S. Army Medical Department adopted the caduceus as the branch insignia for Medical Corps officers and later adopted altered versions of the caduceus for its other officer branches (current branches), which were just coming into existence at that time. By the First World War, the caduceus had become the symbol of Army Medicine, who began referring to it as "The Medical Caduceus" (see http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/cph.3g07576/) but still not widely associated with the general practice of medicine in the United States (which is why they had to specify that the caduceus was medical). Many civilian doctors joined the Army, wore the caduceus insignia on their collar, and returned home. When they did, they used the caduceus they had worn while in the Army to advertise their medical practices. Many more civilian doctors were enrolled in the Volunteer Medical Service Corps (see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1593847/) which issued a modified caduceus pin to its members (a caduceus with VMS across the top). Thus, many members of the medical profession who didn't serve in the Army Medical Department during the war associated the caduceus not with non-combatant status (the herald staff of Mercury) but with medical service. The use of the caduceus by civilian physicians led to the association of the caduceus and medicine in the general (American) public's mind. The choice of the caduceus did not result from error, but rather from a series of events that led to a divergence from the symbol's original associations. Definitions change, but you've got to look at the history to understand why they changed.Eltrace (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The history of caduceus as a symbol of medicine is even more complicated than that, which is why it has its own article at caducueus as a symbol of medicine, but pretty much all the reliable sources state that it is an error, or some variation of that wording. Wikipedia only reports what the reliable sources say, and we can't find any that hold the opposite view. That being the case, not mentioning it as erroneous is WP:UNDUE. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Some input from a semiotics expert would be welcome here. Way too much attention paid to alleged origin of this supposed wretched misuse of a hallowed symbol and virtually nothing on its current medical and nonmedical use by government agencies,etc. Who exactly is harmed by this "misappropriation" and why is there such a focus on the obscure nineteenth century origins of the usage? This is inappropriate when it leads to so much thinly-veiled editorialising and such a perfunctory treatment of twenty-first century usage. And BTW are the editors quite certain that this dreadful error is perpetuated only in the US? As I said under "Caduceus As a Symbol of Medicine": It's a meme. People get it. Get over it.68.178.50.46 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

References

See Also: Enki

The 'See Also' section of this article provides a link to Enki with the claim that Enki was 'a Sumerian god whose symbol was 2 serpents on an eagle-winged stick, which was already an ancient symbol before Enki's cult arose.' However, visiting the Enki page reveals no mention of the caduceus or any kind of staff or stick like it. In fact, a perusal in the Talk:Enki page reveals that all mention of the caduceus has been removed from that page due to lack of citation. --AntonChanning (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

This is hyped here as a suitable illustration for the article Caduceus

Advertisement

I deleted the illustration of bottles of "Caduceus" wine and was reverted by the User below, who left the following unsigned message at my Talkpage:

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

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)

I'm curious: is your primary objection simply the verbiage I used in the photograph caption? That's humorous to me since I included it to avoid an objection based on notability. And if that is your objection, couldn't that have been simply edited for tone without deleting the whole thing? What happened to assuming good faith instead of subtlely comparing my edit to "trashing the article"? --shift6 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

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.

Further clarifying: mentioning a relevant commercial product is not "promoting" it either. Promotion implies a non-NPOV, mentioning is the light of a relevant article is plainly encyclopedic. --shift6 (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

This article is about the useage of the symbol caduceus. The wine bottle does not feature said symbol, and is, IMHO, irrelevant. Feel free to make a Caduceus cellars page, which can feature as many pictures as you like, and then put an otheruses tag at the top of the page. Other than that, the link is just not there for this article - there is no mention in the 'Lion' article about every product which has ever been called, or used an image of a lion. Its just commercial junk. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 22:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"This article is about the useage of the symbol caduceus." Yeah, I can see that. --shift6 (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparing the Lion article is, of course, ludicrous. I agree that there are many articles on wiki where a listing of "other uses" would be inappropriate. However, since we're talking about symbols, as you said the "symbol cauceus", let us look at wiki articles about other symbols. First, I'll use your example: Lion (heraldry), an article which does contain other uses besides the primary heraldric topic. Other articles on symbols have similar sections, even including commercial uses, for instance: Eye of Providence, Heart, Rose, Swastika, and the ubiquitous Cross.

Incidently, the wine bottle in the photograph does prominently feature the caduceus embossed into the glass extending from just below the word CADUCEUS to just above the word NAGA. It may be hard to see with the color settings on some monitors or something, but I'm pretty sure that isn't against wiki policy. --shift6 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But that does largely remove any usefulness as an illustration for this article! Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree (I think most articles could use more pics to illustrate the topics at hand), I appreciate that your opinion is far less antagonistic than some of the other participants in this talk session.

Anyway I can see some people feel very strongly about it so I'll go ahead and move on to trashing other wiki articles with flagrant commercialism; like posting relevant pics. Keep fighting the good fight, team. --shift6 (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edit

I have attempted to add a few details to this article, as well as to clean up the continuity of style. I have removed the subsection on meaning because it was entirely without citation and was a mishmash of speculative and syncretistic "occult" interpretation. I have no problems if a section on the meaning of the symbol is replaced provided that it contains citations from reliable sources and does not zig-zag across the entire esoteric spectrum. --Picatrix (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

UNICODE

The STAFF OF HERMES Unicode character (U+269A) listed in the article as the "lexicographical form" shows up in my browser as a big old question mark. This character is clearly not universally supported. Can/should this be replaced with an image instead, perhaps in a table with the other 2 symbols? Sjb0926 (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Moses' serpent on a stick

This got removed for irrelevance:

• Another possible source of the image of the healing snake predates the Greek mythology by centuries. It dates to 1500 BC to a Biblical event in the days of Moses in Numbers 21:4-9. In that story the Israelites had been attacked and bitten by a plague of poisonous snakes. Moses was instructed by God to make a Brass snake on a rod and to lift it up into the air. Those who came and looked upon the snake were healed. Hence, the snake on a rod for the symbol of healing perhaps adopted by the Greeks centuries later.

I'm not clear why. Incidentally, I've previously heard this passage quoted in conjunction with the more ascensional John 3:14 as another caduceus/kundalini tie-in. K2709 (talk) 08:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, if you read the article, and supporting references, you'll see that the caduceus is not a healing symbol, and this is a recent (i.e. 19th/20th century) confusion. For that reason, as the symbol is not linked to medicine, it seems unlikely to have a healing history! I hope that helps, and there is information on this possible route at the Rod of Asclepius article, which is the correct one in this instance. I hope that helps. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the biblical theory about Moses' serpent has made its way into the Caduceus article again. I'm removing it on this basis: it is already discussed in the Rod of Asclepius article, which is what it relates to, and hence where it belongs. There is no need for one theory of the origin of the Rod of Asclepius to appear two times, and in any case, to state it again, it belongs in the article on the Rod of Asclepius. --Picatrix (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yogic Interpretation

Excellent addition!! I've moved the prose around a bit to make it better I think -and added the formal "no connection" which I think needs to be there to maintain NPOV since, as far as I know, this is just a coincidence in terms of symbology (especially since actual images of the chakras etc. from historical texts look nothing like the caduceus!). But wonderful addition to make the article more complete.--Cpt ricard (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The citation for this business is sadly wanting (Llewellyn cannot be considered an academically reputable publisher by any stretch of the imagination). Further, what place does "yogic interpretation" have in an encyclopedia article about the historical symbol called the Caduceus? The association of the Caduceus symbol with kundalini and 'yoga' (presumably the author means, specifically, work with pranayama, or more specifically, swara yoga, for those in the know...) rests on no attested historical basis. The number of chakras recognized in various systems of course varies (e.g. 7 in a Tantric context, 5 in a Buddhist, etc.) and the route of ida and pingala winds around the spine (in some interpretations or traditions) while sushumna is represented as a central 'channel' running up the spine. These channels do not always pass through 'subtle centers' and indeed, when they do, the resulting diagram looks nothing like the Caduceus. If we accept this slapdash sort of 'jeepers that's cool' free association and syncretism we might as well add a section on 'yogic interpretation' to articles discussing the DNA double-helix. If the editor who placed this content really feels it belongs in an encyclopedia I suggest that he or she cite it properly, and put it somewhere where at least a weak case for its inclusion can be made, like in articles that discuss kundalini, etc. It doesn't belong here in it's current form, and I doubt that even if more cheesy citations were found it would belong here. I'm removing it. --Picatrix (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a few points:

I'm not citing a publisher, I'm citing a recognised, award-laden authority on an non-academic subject.

Also, it's practically the definition of a symbol that it's an abstraction of its meaning rather than a precise diagram.

The "Yogic interpretation" title is inaccurate really. The Gardiner reference argues that kundalini was the original inspiration for esoteric circles that designed the caduceus, ouroboros, etc, not an interpretation. To perpetuate them but keep the knowledge they codified hidden from the mainstream, alternate interpretations were deliberately encouraged. Your allegations of cheesy syncretism are therefore exactly what they must have hoped for. :^)

I don't have time to research this to death, but just to keep things moving here's an article describing a historical basis for this association: "The double serpent on the staff was solely a representation of the kundalini coursing up the body" There's sources of all kinds stating direct relevance, so deletion isn't appropriate. K2709 (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's consider this then, if we may: how about an esoteric interpretations section? I'm not suggesting this as the title, but we might discuss the various esoteric interpretations (where sufficient citation is available) that come from outside the historical context of the symbol itself (i.e. syncretism). In order to justify the section, however, for my part I'd be interested in seeing another citable view on the esoteric significance beyond the business of it being a kundalini symbol. It's not that I'm against syncretic interpretations, it's that the bar is positioned higher for the inclusion of such content in an encyclopedia. For example, I'd love to mention yoga and the caduceus if there were a shred of period evidence attesting to the association. Like if you found a mention of Apollonius of Tyana discussing the symbolism of the caduceus when he was studying among the gymnosophists. The problem is, I'm aware of no such mention... Hence the academic weight behind a section just on putative kundalini correspondences just isn't there; on the other hand, a sentence mentioning this theory my be appropriate in a general section on syncretic and esoteric interpretations. --Picatrix (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, although I expect it would mostly end up revolving around other cultures' takes on the same phenomenology anyway. Egypt's Wadjet, whom I note has been described as "the cultural ancestress of the caduceus", also happens to be an Eastern goddess who rears up as one of two snakes that manifest through exactly the same spot on the forehead of Tutankhamun for example. K2709 (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The viewpoint that its use is an error (or: a mistake is not a mistake if enough people make it)

It is not our place as WP contributors to declare anything an "error". We may, however, cite experts or other reliable sources who call something erroneous. I won't edit war over this, if I'm reverted, but I do hope that we can make a neutral article, rather than one which is prescriptive.

It seems the US Medical Corps decided they wanted two serpents instead of one. Well, that's their choice. Now, if anyone wants to come up and say it's a wrong choice, I suggest we report the fact that X called Y "wrong" about Z - rather than saying that Z is wrong. That's all. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,

This is not just a claim here; there are a number of citations in the article which give this usage as erroneous - you only need to read some of the references from the list. The usage in medical terms is definitely erroneous, all be it relatively widespread in the US. Hope that helps. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 17:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion Uncle Ed. But I have to ask, first of all, in reference to your posting on the Rod of Asclepius talk page, who are the articles 'owners'? This remark sounds rather like an insinuation, which would seem to be counterproductive. And why do you write "if the article 'owners' object to our being neutral on this"? [emphasis added] Is this use of the possessive pronoun "our" in this passage an instance of a royal "we", an editorial "we", or both? In any case such nosism raises questions about the writer's rhetorical agenda. Happily, I have no mouse in my pocket and can therefore refer to myself in the first person rather than conjuring illusory ranks of aggrieved editors, interested only in neutrality, blocked in their noble pursuit by the selfish interests of the article's 'owners'.

Beyond indicating my personal impatience with this kind of rhetorical 'set-up', I'd like to ask you if you can provide more substantial support for your assertion that NPOV editorial policy prohibits affirmative statements of fact. I frame the question in this way because:

1. The caduceus was not generally associated with healing or medicine, and notable and verifiable citations have been provided establishing this.
2. The caduceus was generally associated with theft, trickery, eloquence, lies and commerce, and notable and verifiable citations have been provided establishing this.
3. Most specialized studies have explicitly remarked upon the apparent mistake or error in adopting the caduceus as a symbol of medicine, and notable and verifiable citations have been provided establishing this.

It has therefore been established that the use of the caduceus to signify medicine, medical practice, and/or the healing arts is a notable and verifiable error, without recourse to original research. It is therefore possible to make a positive statement of fact: the use of the caduceus to symbolize medicine is an error. When I reread the NPOV guidelines just now I came upon the following: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." and "A fact can be asserted without simon-says inline-text phrasing."

If you really are on a crusade to remove affirmative statements of fact then why not do a search for the terms "erroneously" and "error" on Wikipedia and start with uses that are not supported by extensive citations and balanced with presentations of alternative views (unlike in this article). You'll find (as I just did in doing the search) that if affirmative, positive statements of errors of fact are in violation of NPOV guidelines it's rather curious that there are so damned many of them...

I also cannot help but note that while you claim NPOV is violated by asserting that the caduceus is erroneously used to symbolize medicine, you fail to offer any citations that show it is not an error. Just to make sure it's clear that I'm not offering personal opinions as statements of fact, I'll offer some citations (and invite you to do the same, in the hopes you'll share more than your unsupported personal opinion):

"an entirely erroneous conception of what in fact is the emblem of the healing art." Stuart L. Tyson, "The Caduceus", in The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 34, No. 6, (Jun., 1932), pp. 492-498

"The majority of medical opinion now favors the use of the Aesculapian rod as a medical symbol." […] "The use of the caduceus in medicine I believe to have originated in a confusion between it and the Aesculapian rod." Bernice Engle, "The Use of Mercury's Caduceus as a Medical Emblem", in The Classical Journal, Vol. 25, No. 3, (Dec., 1929), pp. 204-208

"Friedlander has written an informative book on the symbol of medicine, tracing the missteps leading to the current confusion. Most of the mistakes occurred in the 19th century, and a key error took place in 1871 when the U.S. surgeon general designated the caduceus as the seal of the Marine Hospital Service, destined to become the U.S. Public Health Service in 1889. Gershen (p. 45) states that the change was for aesthetic reasons, whereas Friedlander attributes the adoption of the caduceus by the Marine Hospital Service "because of its relationship with merchant seamen and the maritime industry." Then in 1902, the Army Medical Corps also adopted the caduceus as its symbol, citing the fact that Hermes the messenger at times brought a message of peace. [...] We may arguably say that the current heraldic muddle thus arises with the surgeon general's 1871 decision. Today, there are calls to clarify the symbol and to move to a uniform use of the Aesculapian staff to symbolize medicine. One group calling for the use of the historically correct symbol is the Minnesota Medical Association, whose director of communications is quoted as saying, "If it's got wings on it, it's not really the symbol of medicine; some may find it hard to believe, but it's true. It's something like using the logo for the National Rifle Association when referring to the Audubon Society". [Emphasis Added] Robert B. Taylor, White Coat Tales: Medicine's Heroes, Heritage and Misadventures, Springer, 2008, pp 207-208

"The caduceus' continued association with medicine is based on flimsy and pseudo-historical research." Gerald David Hart, "Asclepius: The God of Medicine", The Royal Society of Medicine Press, 2000, p237

As noted in The Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 245, 1981, p1730 "The caduceus is mistakenly used by many, most notably the US Army, as the symbol of the medical profession."

"Though the caduceus has long been accepted as a device to represent medicine, it is the staff and serpent of Asklepios which have the more ancient and authentic claim to be the emblem of medicine" The Oxford Illustrated Companion To Medicine, 2001, p262

"It is hard to trust a profession that cannot even get its symbols straight. Most physicians in the United States think that the symbol of their profession is something called the caduceus. But this is actually not true. […] Historians have discovered that someone in the U.S. Army Medical Corps mistook the caduceus for the Aesculapion and introduced the Medical Corps' symbol at the beginning of the twentieth century. Soon thereafter, everyone in the United States was emulating the mistake." Daniel P. Sulmasy, A Balm for Gilead: Meditations On Spirituality and the Healing Arts, Georgetown University Press, 2006, p55

In Modern Veterinary Practice, v.47 (7-14), 1966, p102 we read "So how did the caduceus come to have (presumed) medical significance? It was all a mistake."

to this may be added Walter J. Friedlander, ‪The Golden Wand of Medicine: A History of the Caduceus Symbol in Medicine‬, Greenwood, 1992, which is a book length treatment of the error under discussion. Bold emphasis added throughout citations. --Picatrix (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I also note that your title for this talk page section "The viewpoint that its use is an error" is a neat way of contextualizing all of the discussion that occurs under this heading. Before even reading the discussion the entire exchange is framed in the context of error being a point of view. I have therefore changed the title to make this spin more explicit. One wonders if error is always a point of view? Can error be established as fact? The initial historical error here has been established as a fact based on citation. At what point does the initial error expire? It is clear that the bones of the revisionist editorial case are knit by the assumption that a mistake is not a mistake once enough people make it. That's all fine and good if you can bring in citations that show that degree of semiological sophistication on the part of the authors of sources available to editors. But you do not provide:

1. Any cited in-context support for the position that whether something is an error depends on your point of view, or

2. Any cited in-context support for the position that the particular use of the caduceus as a symbol of medicine is not an error

And so I ask, are you really arguing for a neutral point of view, or rather for editors to neutralize (neuter perhaps?) the dominant attested and citable view?--Picatrix (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The former. And to make a long story short, all I'm asking for is to change it from "it is an error" to "X regards this as an error" (or "regarded as erroneous by X"). Best "regards", --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that change would be undue weight to a discredited theory (i.e. that the caduceus is genuinely a medical symbol), as i can not find a single instance of a reputable source which disputes that the adoption of the caduceus was a mistake. Picatrix has done a excellent job above of summarising 9 reputable citations which support the current wording. That to me is a consensus, in the absence of any citations to the contrary. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 10:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

and a little further, going back to your original title for this thread - a mistake is always a mistake, regardless of how many people make it - that is a cornerstone of wikipedia policy, not least wp:v. The whole point is to clear up all those instances of 'i once heard that...'. Otherwise, we'd be writing about how the Great Wall of China can be seen from space! OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 10:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith, one issue is that lots of physicians and health professionals presumably see this article. The article contains an assertion of an error that many of the aforementioned professionals might take issue with. In such a situation it's easy for a reader to feel as though he or she is "being told" something by a Wikipedia editor. It's easy to claim editorial bias or POV peddling. It's easy to say that the manifest fact that the symbol is used ("erroneously" or not) to represent medicine makes assertion of error in its deployment (at best) pedantic or (at worst) manifestly absurd. Furthermore, Uncle Ed's suggestion is not unreasonable. What does it matter if we attribute the observation of error to third parties?

Answer: We have many citations from reputable sources both academic and professional, both dated and current, positively and explicitly asserting error. No comparable group of citations exists to support the view that it's use is not an error. If such citations can be supplied someone will hastily edit the article to reflect them. In their absence we are left to decide whether a lot of people making a mistake in the US warrants changing the phrasing of the article to suggest that there are many points of view on this issue. But we're talking about an encyclopedia based on verifiable citations (Western Academic Textual Tradition). Every 'argument' in favor of backing off from phrasing like "error" or "mistake" that I've seen thus far is based on policy arguments (NPOV etc.); not one is based on citations. Keep it simple folks. All it takes is reading the article to see that the 'alternative' views (which are presented and cited therein) amount to a bunch of old apologia pro, all of which dates from before 1930. No editor has thus far presented material that attests anything like an open academic debate or continuing discussion. A few guys prior to 1930 summarized the crappy old arguments for it being a legitimate medical symbol and then established that it simply wasn't. Tweaking the wording to explicitly state only that a third party or parties has asserted that it is an error leaves a gap of expectation that implies ongoing debate that simply is not there. Again, if anyone can provide citations of any quality I'll be happy to abruptly do an about-face. If there is some policy that I am in ignorance of, or if there's some fear of legal liability, please remedy my ignorance and be explicit about it. But attributing the only current citable view to third parties in the absence of any current citable opposing view seems more Rhetorical Stratagem than prudent editorial strategy. --Picatrix (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, user Uncle Ed wrote: "(The idea that using the caduceus is an "error" should be attributed to a person or group - yelling at us in ALL CAPS isn't helpful)" in an edit summary. I'm worried that as this discussion proceeds someone will come along and read this and assume that contributing editors were 'yelled at' in the course of discussion or in a reversion edit summary. In looking over this article I was unable to find any point at which anyone was 'yelled at' in all caps. Does anyone here know what he's talking about? Did I miss something? --Picatrix (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

There is an HTML comment in all caps:

• IMPORTANT NOTE: IF YOU ARE INTENDING ON ADDING ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE CADUCEUS AS A MEDICAL SYMBOL, PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE AND 'ROD OF ASCLEPIUS' FIRST AS THERE IS MUCH CONFUSION BETWEEN THE TWO - ANY REFERENCE TO CADUCEUS AS A MEDICAL SYMBOL WILL BE DELETED UNLESS IT IS WELL CITED AS PER WP:CITE and WP:V

My point is that some people chose to use the double-snake symbol to refer to medicine, even though the single-snake, wingless symbol has roots in antiquity. Perhaps we could dig up the reasoning process these people used when they decided to adopt the double snake. (Does the US military have a preference for symmetry, or something?)

Also, please reread my comments: I did not intend to suggest that we assert that "two snakes for medicine" is not an error. Rather, I am suggesting that we avoid any editorial comment in our own voice that there is a correct number of snakes, or that one symbol is or is not erroneous.

I think my original suggestion was that we cite any sources who call two snakes an error. Sorry if I was not clear about what I hoped to see in the article.

If you agree with my proposal about crediting sources, we might say that:

• An article in the The Journal of the American Medical Association, v. 245, 1981, p1730 calls the use of the caduceus as a medical symbol mistaken.

We might even highlight Daniel P. Sulmasy's comments about (what he calls) the medical profession's inability "to get its symbols straight" and his charge that most US physicians believe something that isn't true. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is still not in line with WP:NPOV (or specifically WP:UNDUE) and to quote "The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views". You have still not provided any evidence that even a minority of people suggest that medical use of the caduceus is correct and to further quote from NPOV "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not". If you can dig up some of the evidence you suggest for a reason as to why 2 snakes are used in reputable literature, then of course it would be acceptable, but we can't add things just because you think they might be true. If you look at WP:WORDS you'l see that adding comment to preface a face (especially from a single source) can be seen as Editorializing, and give we have half a dozen reputable citations supporting the statement (and none against) this is clearly editorial undue weight. As an example, if you look at Evolution you won't see reference in the lead to creationism, as there is no body of evidence to support it. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 16:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's all just slow down. I posted a compromise that I hope will work. In the meantime, I have to say that Uncle Ed's tactic of simply ignoring the issues raised on the discussion page is really frustrating. I and others have raised any number of points here, and this person continues to cite (ambiguous) policy instead of citing references. What's with the tactic of just ignoring the points raised in my posts? Or is it just that he/she didn't bother to read them? --Picatrix (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a point Uncle Ed is trying to make is that the adoption of a symbol is an act, not a verbal statement, not the kind of thing which can be a factual error. Who knows, maybe the adopters knew what they were doing, but were putting on a practical joke on posterity. We can say it is based on an error if all RS's agree, but saying it is an error can be the kind of value judgment that Wikipedia eschews. English is often ambiguous about which meaning is meant, and that is fine, because the reader will assume a sensible interpretation. But when it isn't ambiguous, some usages of "error" can have a funny sound to them. This is really a problem of English usage and style more than anything else.John Z (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

John Z, Thanks for your input. Contemporary reliable, verifiable sources agree that it was adopted in error. A couple of sources from the US prior to about 1930 argue that it is not an error, but they have been characterized by more recent studies as pseudo-scholarship. Part of what is so frustrating about this is that I have read many of these sources, and I've been researching it at length, and familiarity with the sources allows one to see that it was and is an error. My issue here is: at what point does the initial error expire? And when are the claims that such a statement violates NPOV going to be backed up with sources that show it's use is not in error? As an encyclopedia, the issue here is primarily citation. People keep thumping the NPOV violation issue without advancing sources to support the view that the statement violates NPOV. Thanks for bringing up the distinction about the adoption of the symbol. I think it's important. However, I should point out that while the adoption is an act, the symbol itself has communicative value, and is (though more ambiguous) a statement. Continuing to use a symbol that verifiably has no history as a symbol of medicine, that was certainly itself adopted in error (or else was not intended to represent medicine) would seem to be erroneous or mistaken use (and is explicitly described in this way in many sources). --Picatrix (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Owen, your use of "all be it" is erroneus. It's "albeit". I think all of this emphasis on an excessively prescriptive viewpoint (and we are talking about linguistics here, of a sort) and this safari after the remote origins of this twuly,twuly dweadful misunderstanding have led to a fussy and distorted couple of articles. As for the discussion: ditto. Full disclosure: I call "football" (insert gasp) "soccer". So sue me.68.178.50.46 (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Owain, that is. Hope it doesn't start an argument a century hence.68.178.50.46 (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Customs Service of GDR

File:Verdienstmedaillen der Zollverwaltung der DDR DZM.jpg

The Customs Services of the German Democratic Republic (german: Zollverwaltung der DDR) had used the Caduceus - how do you say in english? - as a "Symbol" or "Embleme"? (Sorry, I am not a native english speaker), see de:Zollverwaltung der DDR and de:Datei:Verdienstmedaillen der Zollverwaltung der DDR DZM.jpg. May I ask you to put this piece of Information (with the picture) into this article? I'm afraid, my English is not good enough for that. Thanks. --Lkl ★ 20:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello? --Lkl ★ 15:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

apologies for not replying earlier. I'm not sure about this one - i'm not convinced about adding an organisation with presumably no longer exists, and i'm not sure the picture adds much without it. Any other editors have a thought? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hermes/Mercury/commerce/borders: yes, it seems like an example that adds to the article, so I've worked it in, with relevant text.--Wetman (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! :) --Lkl ★ 12:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

formatting

For some reason, it is difficult to see and click on the categories at the bottom of the page. Is there a problem with the formatting? Eagle4000 (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Renders fine for me. What browser are you using? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 17:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The "modern use as a symbol for medicine" subtopic

So what if around 1902 some people in the US "mistakenly"(?) or "erroneously"(?) used two snakes instead of one? The fact is that the caduceus and the rod of Asclepius are closely related throughout history, and likely share a common origin. This is much more important than driving home the point over and over again that it is a "mistake" to use two snakes when symbolizing medicine.

Annoyingly, this nerdy "controversy" is spamming the internets to such an extent that it is almost impossible to search for decent classicist references on the serpent-staff online. --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sadly for you, there are dozens of references in suitable journals and books that disagree with your opinion, and as far as I have been able to ascertain, almost none since the early 20th century which support it. All the evidence points to them having disparate origins, and i suggest you read the article at Caduceus as a symbol of medicine for some background and additional reading. Of course, if you have such citations, it would be great to include them and modify the article accordingly, but all the evidence so far presented shows they have separate origin and have maintained separate usage apart from this medical confusion. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 11:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

this isn't sad at all. But please refrain from dumping off topic content on this page. If you are interested in this "controversy", please go to the dedicated article at Caduceus as a symbol of medicine. I am trying to turn this into an actual article on the symbol in Greek mythology.

as the article Caduceus as a symbol of medicine which you just asked me to read is well aware, the association of the caduceus with medicine dates at least to the 16th century. I am aware that there has been "confusion" in the US adoption of the symbol, and, as the Oxford illustrated companion to medicine puts it, "purists lament the substitution". This is all fair enough, but it does not warrant more than a brief paragraph in this article.

If you give me a break, I will attempt to establish what actual academics have to say about the origin of the serpent-staff. So far, our articles are just googled hodge-podge, the usual mediocre result of websearches by well-meaning editors without the background knowledge necessary to pinpoint the relevant references and combine them into a good article. --dab (𒁳) 12:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree, as this is a key facet of its use, and in the US probably its primary use. I don't think the scale of removals proposed should be undertaken without discussion. The daughter article is all well and good (although i co-wrote most of it, and might be biased in that respect), but daughter articles are often overlooked, and the key points should always be covered in the main article. Can we first discuss the changes and reasoning, otherwise we won't reach a stable article consensus. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

the topic of this article is an item of Greek antiquity. The USA is entirely irrelevant apart from brief mention in a "Modern uses" section. I don't see what you want to discuss. I do not dispute the encyclopedicity of the "daughter article", and I do not object to a due WP:SS link to the daughter article. I do not see what else you could reasonably ask for. I hope you will agree that the article as I encountered it was completely broken, with more than half of the WP:LEAD going on about the US medicine item, including lengthy quotes.

incidentially, for the purposes of the daughter article, I would insist that we cannot talk of "erroneous" or "mistaken" use of two snakes in Wikipedia's voice. The phrasing of the Oxford illustrated companion to medicine, i.e that "purists" have voiced such opinions, is entirely sufficient. --dab (𒁳) 12:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

reference for future use,

A god who shares Hermes' caduceus is Asclepius. He too, like Sabazius, has a particular affinity for snakes. Eugene Lane, Corpus Cultus Iovis Sabazii (CCIS): Conclusions, Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l'Empire romain, Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, No 100/3, Brill Archive, 1989, ISBN 9789004089747, p. 15.

You say prototype rod of Asclepius...

...I say proto-Caduceus.

These guys clearly didn't care either way. K2709 (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I am researching this topic because I intend to expand world serpent into a full article. The world serpent in conjunction with the world tree is a very central motive of Indo-European mythologies, but also one of obvious overlap between Indo-European and Ancient Near Eastern traditions. I am trying to collect what current scholarship has to say on this. One of the things it does have to say is that the two motives of the world tree and world serpent are found in the serpent-staff or caduceus, but also in the staff of Moses, the snake and tree in Eden, etc. One important question would be at what point the second serpent can be pinpointed. Wikipedia so far has no decent discussion of any of this. All this "US medical corps" stuff is just a distraction from a serious article on ancient religion and mythology, and it has correctly been delegated to a separate stand-alone article.

it should be noted that caduceus can also refer to the rod of Asclepius. The twin-serpent staff of Hermes should properly be called "caduceus of Hermes" to avoid confusion. In fact, it is best to state explicitly what number of serpents one is talking about whenever this is relevant. It is the job of this article to unravel this entire problem of the second serpent. --dab (𒁳) 12:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

ok, I tried to make a case in a hurry now because of the threat of reverts. It turns out that the association of both Hermes and Asclepius with serpents is via Apollo. Hermes explicitly receives the caduceus from Apollo in the Homeric hymn. Asclepius is the "son of Apollo", which in mythological terms is practically as good as saying he is Apollo. Thus the connection with the serpent / the Indo-European dragon is documented. The only question is, why twin serpents? It turns out that also Asclepius seems to have been flanked by two serpents. The real question here is not Hermes vs. Asclepius as in the US controversy, but why and when the world serpent (which is obviously singular) has been duplicated. The obvious (and referenced) answer is, by influence of Babylonian iconography, but there are probably other aspects (such as the ambiguous sex of Hermes), but I don't have references for this at present.

There is a certain irony, I guess, that the "caduceus vs. rod of Asclepius controversy" ends up being about two variants of what is ultimately a single symbol, but of course the US stuff needs to be discussed on its own terms, and it would be WP:SYNTH to introduce this angle in the Caduceus as a symbol of medicine article. --dab (𒁳) 13:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Here's the deal. This article is not a googled hodge-podge (or wasn't). I've done quite a bit of work with primary and secondary sources (as have others), all of which are indicated. While I'll certainly own that it requires work and improvement, and that the information related to "erroneous" and "mistaken" use might not require so much emphasis now that we have put together the sub-article on this topic, the current attempt to make a case for what appears to be original syncretic research (In the style of Frazer and the popularizer Campbell) regarding the universality of a world-serpent ("you say proto-type of Rod of Asclepius, I say proto-Caduceus") is sloppy and not properly supported. Barring further comment I'll go ahead and put this article back together. As for "erroneous" and "mistaken" these are both terms taken from a number of academic secondary sources, all of which have been cited. While as editors we cannot indicate that we feel the use is erroneous, we can certainly base statements of fact in the article on the preponderance of secondary sources that themselves indicate the use is erroneous or mistaken (which it is). As for the term "cadueceus" applying to both the Rod of Asclepius as well as the herald's wand with two snakes: yes, there is evidence (particularly in 19th century France) for the term being used for both, but it is no less mistaken, particularly against a background of several thousand years in which the two devices were clearly referred to as distinct. See the citations in article. --Picatrix (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Having objected originally, i thought i'd see how it turned out with references etc. and then unfortunately haven't got back to it, but the appropriate references have not been forthcoming, particularly around this common origin. I think 'proto-caduceus' vs 'proto-asclepian' seems pseudo scientific and looking for things that aren't there. The duck explanation is more likely that multiple origins or serpent iconography occured in different places at different time, and without the originally promised references 'world serpent' seems quite far fetched. I agree with Picatrix, and the new article has less reliable citations, and seems to by wp:synthing content. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 21:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what is going on?

Hi,

I'm one of the editors who contributes regularly to this article. I return to Wikipedia after a short break only to see the article has been hacked up and much of the cited content replaced with... with I don't know what. Exactly what is the rationale for the deletions and changes? --Picatrix (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

snakes and the moon.

I found it interesting that the symbol was related to Apollo. It made me remember that there are many mythologies linking serpents as adversarial to the moon/sun; such as eclipses are caused by a giant snake swallowing it like an egg, and Apollo, a sun/moon deity is renouned for slaying a large serpent as is the egyptian god ra always battling apep in the night. I am wondering if the symbol could have been a snake impaled on a spear or it's skin wrapped around a staff to dry like a trophy. PS. i added a link to the amphisbaena page. i think it may solve the mystery of the 2 snakes as the earlier staff seems to depict it and it also is regarded as having healing properties and is from greek myth. but as i am no scholar i'll leave ther research to others. Bloodkith (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Are the snakes mating?

The recently reverted edit will be a reference to Tiresias, who flipped gender setting a staff between two mating snakes (in order to represent the yin/yang dynamics of kundalini I dare say). That article thinks Le mythe de Tirésias: essai d'analyse structurale is a valid source that explicitly links in the caduceus, so interested parties could WP:PROVEIT that way if so inclined. K2709 (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Tiresias is one of the possible origins, although I think the other is more likely, especially as Tiresias killed the female snake with his staff, rather than entwining them around it. That doesn't make it true that they are mating for the purposes of the lede, as there is no definitive origin. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

And if the caduceus can indeed be connected with Tiresias then medical agencies involved in sex reassignment surgery could make use of it without any troubling concern about making a "mistake" by so doing. Matter of fact, since they are in the "business" of correcting "mistakes" its use could be considered "doubly" appropriate.68.178.50.46 (talk) 04:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sumerians

An editor recently added the following prose to the article:

"The oldest example of the winged disc symbol is found on Sumarian carvings,

Sumer (from Akkadian Šumeru; Sumerian 𒆠𒂗𒂠 ki-en-ĝir₁₅, approximately "land of the civilized kings" or "native land") was an ancient civilization and historical region in southern Mesopotamia, modern Iraq, during the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, dating 4000 to 4500 B.C. The winged disk is found in numerous carvings and is closely tied to the Sumerian creation myths. Ancient Greek archaeologists believe the Sumerians had a profound influence on nearly all aspects of Greek Civilization. "

Now, this seems detailed, but doesn't assert relevance to this article. It talks of a 'winged disc', which isn't the same thing. The hyperlinked article isn't very enlightening (and seems to be self published in either case). If there is something in this, then it would be good to include, but at the moment I can't reconcile it to being reputable enough to stay in. Further information would be welcomed if anyone has it?

OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

References

Addition re Mithra

This was added to the article:

The ancient eastern deity Mithra was depicted as being born out of a rock and sometimes that iconography was accompanied by Mithra depicted with a lion's head and entwined by two snakes. The cult of Mithra is older than the cult of Hermes and the subsequent Mercurius that were also, but later, associated with the cadecus. In Sanskrit 'Mitra' means 'friend' and in Avestan 'Mitra' means 'oath/covenant//contract'. Thus the cadecus as a symbol of the herald can be derived back to Avestan times, 18th century BCE. Another interesting aspect is that the Hurrians and the Mitanni, attested in Ugarit tablets from the 14th century BCE, speaks of a primordial sea-serpent of chaos which had to be vanquished (cr: Illyanka). The ethymology of the Mitanni can be derived back to 'Mithra-anni' meaning 'covenant of heavens'. Also in Assyrian tablets, BCE 709, king Midas of Phrygia is called 'Mi-it-a' which also seems suspiciously cognate with Mithra.

This seems interesting, but needs citations. Anyone have any thoughts? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Forensic Astrology Org.

Should we mention the Caduceus (or something that looks exactly like it) is the symbol of the Organization of Forensic Astrologers? 24.51.217.118 (talk) 05:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a notable organisation. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 10:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caduceus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061111101640/http://www.endicott-studio.com/rdrm/forcaduc.html to http://www.endicott-studio.com/rdrm/forcaduc.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 01:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Greek mythology sources and questions

This article states the following things:

A. "The Homeric hymn to Hermes relates how Hermes offered his lyre fashioned from a tortoise shell as compensation for the cattle he stole from his half brother Apollo. Apollo in return gave Hermes the caduceus as a gesture of friendship. The association with the serpent thus connects Hermes to Apollo, as later the serpent was associated with Asclepius, the "son of Apollo"."

B. "One Greek myth of origin of the caduceus is part of the story of Tiresias, who found two snakes copulating and killed the female with his staff. Tiresias was immediately turned into a woman, and so remained until he was able to repeat the act with the male snake seven years later. This staff later came into the possession of the god Hermes, along with its transformative powers."

C. "Another myth suggests that Hermes (or Mercury) saw two serpents entwined in mortal combat. Separating them with his wand he brought about peace between them, and as a result the wand with two serpents came to be seen as a sign of peace."

I have a few questions:

1. The story of Hermes, Apollo's cattle and the lyre is told in at least 2 Greek mythology sources: the Homeric Hymn to Hermes (IV) (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0138%3ahymn%3d4) and Pseudo-Apollodorus (Bibliotheca, 3.10.2) (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Apollod.+3.10.2&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0022). I do not see a reference to the caduceus and the fact it was given by Apollo to Hermes. Where is that piece of information?

2. What is the original source in Greek mythology that tells the story of Tiresias and the snakes?

3. What is the original source in Greek mythology that tells the story of Hermes/Mercury and the snakes?

4. If Apollo gave the caduceus to Hermes (first story) how is it possible that Hermes gained possession of it (second story)? I can only assume the two stories are completely separated.

ICE77 (talk) 07:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Astrological symbol for 10 Hygiea

Kwamikagami I'm intrigued to know why you added U+2BDA ⯚ HYGIEA (especially as my system has no supporting font to reveal its mysteries). How is it relevant? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a caduceus without wings. The original (now obsolete) symbol for 10 Hygiea was the rod of Asclepius, often with a star added to indicate it's an asteroid. There's been some astrological interest more recently, and the symbol I've seen has two snakes/worms, though fewer loops (like w the rod). So this appears to be another instance of the Usonian confusion of the rod with the caduceus. It was added to Unicode a few years ago. Since there are two worms/snakes, I thought it should be mentioned here as a graphic variant. — kwami (talk) 19:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok,as it's a "looks like", I have moved it down to the "different from" section of the infobox. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)