Talk:Ouroboros

Merge

Ijust wanted to point out that there is a different page for the spelling "Ourobouros".

Thanks --- that text is now merged here with minor changes, and redirects. I'm a bit dubious about the Christian interpretation of the symbol. And I suspect the business about autofellatio can be dropped --- never knew of anyone who attached a great deal of cultural weight to the practice, although now I know the true payoffs for gymnastics and yoga. -- IHCOYC 01:19, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

Ourobouros had a talk page, I've moved the info here to this location in time:

COPYVIO: http://www.ldolphin.org/ouro.html

Does anybody has better (or more clear) explaination for Ourobouros?

- Pradyot Rai

Autofellatio

Removed absurd notion of self---------, just an old man's fantasy which has nothing to do with this ancient symbol.Norwikian 15:01, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• Note for posterity, it was a reference to autofellatio. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And you are so sure that autofellatio is NOT an ancient idea? LOL you do not read much mysticism do you? Well the burden of proof is on those who want to add that. Come on Tantric Yoga buffs weigh in on the Chakra symbolism of the act <wink>.

Realistically until modern pop culture picked it up, this was a rather obscure ancient symbol pre-dating much of written history. All the modern citations prove is modern popularity and modern scholarly bias and censorship. If modern experts without access to ancient written records is your standard then you probably ought to stop censoring modern autoerotic references as well -- since they are in fact experts in their field.

However, as a practical matter I suggest Wikipedia adopt PROVISIONAL acceptance on certain topics with thin academic coverage until proper academic citations pro or con are found. I think this case qualifies given that this is a specialize area of mysticism with few REAL (nonliterary) practitioners and next to no academic coverage outside popular culture.

69.23.124.142 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Program link

Hmmmm, is it cool that someone did the linakge to that program and put their email address in the article and such? Just asking if that is in general permissible activity.

--Ouroboros 08:08, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The link to the program is fine, it's a legitimate external link. That mail link needs to go, which I'm doing right now. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:57, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Another reference to Ouroboros

In the Silent Hill game, there is yet another reference to mysticism and the occult and demonology. In order to open the final door before confronting the demon Samael, you have to place the Disk of Ouroboros in the door, along with the Crest of Mercury, Dagger of Melchior, Ankh, and the Amulet of Solomon. I just thought it was funny how many religious and occult references there were in this game. By the way, it was quite a good game.

Additionally, in City of Heroes/City of Villians, the new update (issue 11) features the ability to travel back in time to take on old missions, and the company that allows this is called Ouroboros.

71.67.254.249 (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is also mentioned in one of the Xanth series of books by Piers Anthony. It is described as a snake which bites its own tail and continually circles a castle moat. In order to cross the moat which the creature inhabits the main character of the book must trust his knowledge and walk along the snake (it submerges periodically but through a spiral you can ride to the middle). Unfortunately I cant remember which book it is, too many years ago ClamsonJ (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a reference to it in the Charlie Kaufman movie also, when Charlie's brother Donald tries to describe it to Charlie, but doesn't agree that it is called Ouroboros. "The snake, it’s called ouroboros." "I don’t think so. But anyway,..." —Donald and Charlie phocks (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Milky way

Interesting thought inspired by the reference to the Oroborus being inspired by the Milky Way. Has anyone noticed how ancient symbols often have counterparts in science? The carbon atom is a round circle like the Oroborus and the Double Helix of DNA corresponds to the double snake on the staff of Hermes.

Well I thought it was interesting.

Seems like coincidence to me. And it's a bit of nonsense to describe carbon atoms in terms of shapes, given current theories of quantum mechanics. Citizen Premier 06:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"...believed to have been inspired by the Milky Way, as some ancient texts refer to a serpent of light residing in the heavens." Sounds like northern lights to me. Jakob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.224.151 (talk) 12:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.crystalinks.com/ouroboros.html

The overview if a Ouroboros on Wiki and the link I posted have extremely similar statements.

Infringement?

Not unless there are direct sentences copied out of it--although it is also possible that they copied us. I'm a bit too lazy to look see if there are any sentences repeated, but at the front it doesn't look like it. Citizen Premier 20:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the information given is really general and could have come from anywhere. The article just needs a lot of work to give it an identity of its own. --DanielCD 21:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Listing

Much of the listing here needs to be rethought. It might even be better to make an article specifically got that, as it really take over the article. It's just messy and makes the subject confusing. Not sure at this point what needs to be done though. --DanielCD 21:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Q. Are we trying to make a complete list of every time it is used? A. I don't think so!

Can this be changed to give a sample of uses? Are there any academic references to way the symbol is used in modern culture and why? --FloNight ^talk 03:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove examples that just involve the word and no further significance that helps in understanding the concept. This won't stop the additions that continually trickle in, but then nothin will do that. --DanielCD 12:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Caduceus

Is it worth mentioning that symbolicaly ouroboros is the exact oposite of the Caduceus which stands for fixed points, beginging and end --82.45.120.125 02:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if that's so. I'll try to find it. Have a reference? --DanielCD 14:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Its mentioned in the anime Full Metal Alchemist, i will search for something more solid. --82.42.191.189 18:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Mentioned in passing as linked symbols The two symbols used together in meditation This one seems a bit more solid mentioing their duel uses in Alchemy None of these links (Grabbed from a quick google search) Back up the two symbols being polar oposites however there were numerous mentions of being used in alchemy together. The only direct link that supports anon ips question is this wikipedia entry on a full metal alchemist charecter so im gonna say dont put it in, the polar oposites thing looks like two symbols that look similar and are both used in alchemy were grabbed in this anime by the makers just for a plot point and there is no genuine real world link.--Seth Turner 18:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Psych(e)

Added the "e" to "psych"...I'm pretty sure "psyche" was the intended word. --Stationwagontodd 18:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, it was. --DanielCD 19:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Examples

I will continue to prune the less-relevant examples from the article as they trickle in, as this is not meant to be a collection of every mention of the term or concept. It should be mentioned if it gives some light on the definition of what the Ouroboros is, not just because it uses the name or symbol. --DanielCD 02:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not vitally important, but the Red Dwarf reference needs fixing. It states (at the moment) that "he was found in a box under a pool table with "O rob or us" (phonetically) written on the side." What was believed to be on the box was actually (phonetically) "Our Rob or Ross", as in, the people who left it there couldn't work out the name of the baby...or spell. 203.33.166.37 06:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)hvg3, 6:00, 17 feb 2007 (SYD)

Christian thing

Can we be 100% sure on the Christian thing, cause I can't find any other sites that say that this is a Christian symbol. --Slash's snakepit 03:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of it being a Christian symbol. If the article says it is, and doesn't provide a reference, I'd take it out. --DanielCD 05:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A Christian here, and I have never seen it being anythign symbolic for us. So I would suggest removing it :) --hvg3 203.33.166.37 07:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

The ouroboros is not a christian symbol but I don't know if it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.201.26.254 (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

the only way it is christian is if they stole it from the germans when altering their norse religion. religious people may hate me for saying this but several religions did incorporate parts of others when invading new lands152.91.9.153 (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Missing in literature reference.`

There is an interesting dialog about the origin or rebirth of the universe and mention of a snake eating it's tail(as well as an illustration of it) in Kurt Vonnegut's novel "Breakfast of Champions".

Also there are American folk stories of hoop snakes that are not mentioned in this article, although not necessarily related symbolically may be worth a side note or at least a link to the wiki article on hoop snake.

Hope this helps, Norman Andersen

Please limit the examples to relevant material

I will continue to prune the less-relevant examples from the article as they trickle in, as this is not meant to be a collection of every mention of the term or concept. It should be mentioned if it gives some light on the definition of what the Ouroboros is, not just because it uses the name or symbol.

We need a separate article for the examples as they have taken the article over and make it really confusing. --DanielCD 19:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Popular Culture

I agree that there is FAR too much content on popular culture illustrating the 'ouroboros' idea. I'd agree with a different or separate (but linked) ARTICLE for that content. For "the definition of what the Ouroboros is" and the (prior) background of that idea, I'd want MORE in this article (and less of the illustration from 21st century Hollywood and other entertainers. MaynardClark (talk) 20:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Serpent Cult in Conan the Barbarian movie

The Ouroboros is one of the symbols used by Thulsa Doom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.210.96 (talk • contribs)

I don't think that's related enough. Similar maybe, but not the same. --DanielCD 15:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Oroboro

Google shows this to be another spelling variant! Ludvikus 00:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Which way?

On the page snake at the bottom it says that the ouroboros symbol is clockwise from the head to the tail. What does this mean? And there are various pictures on the ouroboros article of snakes, and there is an equal number of snakes facing one way as there is facing the other. Which is it? Mooski Magnus 01:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture?

Just thought it might be useful for a section on the uses of the Ouroboros in popular culture - there are a few mentioned but I think they deserve their own section. And the Homunculi's Ouroboros tatoos in Fullmetal Alchemist need to be added to that ;) Renkinjutsu1921 16:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken there was originally an entire article for the FMA Ouroboros, but it seems to have been removed some time ago. Shame, it was a good article..:Stirb Nicht Vor Mir:. 02:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortulately it seems to serve as a magnet for every mention of the concept known to man. Many articles are having to delete the pop culture sections, and we may just have to do away with it here as well. I think some is ok, but it gets abused and stuffed with garbage. --DanielCD 21:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Opinion varies. Deleting sections needs consensus on the talk page first. yes, one can be bold and go ahead, but it will be reverted. DGG (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's policy that Wikipedia is not a link farm or a trivia list. See Wikipedia:Trivia sections. Just because it's called "popular culture" doesn't make it non-trivia. Also: being bold can go so far; if you violate the 3rr you can be blocked. You can't just revert forever and you have reverted me several times already. There are reasons articles link to each other; if we had a list of every mention of everything that mentions every concept in every article... that's just nonsensical. The "What links here" key will get you all that. No need to list it all in the article.

If you are going to add stuff at least make it somewhat notable. I agree that some things can add to the article and may be important, but obviously non-notable trivia is subject to removal. See Wikipedia:Relevance of content. --DanielCD 13:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• A fact that connects two subjects may be appropriate for mention in the article of one, but not the other. This is often the case with creative works: what is important within the creative work may not exert a measurable influence on the other subject. --DanielCD 15:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of chaff from those lists. The literature list now has a focus on actual literature. Likewise, i've removed a lot of trivial and obscure metal bands from the music list. Seriously, it seemed like every band with an ouroboros on their album art was mentioned in that list. I've removed the games section entirely because it was just dumb, and longer than the actual article content. --90.206.122.26 (talk) 11:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, I have just pruned every reference which simply states that such-and-such used the symbol. Unless the reference illustrates (or relates to) WHAT ouroboros IS, there's really no point in listing it. This is not the place to flaunt your edgy tastes in anime or doom metal! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.122.26 (talk) 17:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that it deserves a popular culture section, which is limited to notable works, such as Charlie Kaufman's Adaption --Polysophia (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Fullmetal Alchemist

In particular, many fans want to mention that the homunculi in Fullmetal Alchemist have O. tattoos. My inclination (tacitly supported so far, it seems) is to delete such entries as many times as it takes, until someone sees fit to mention why it's a hoop-snake and not any of an infinite number of other symbols which, so far as one can know without having seen the show, would be equally suitable. —Tamfang (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason why the Ouroboros image repeatedly pops up in Fullmetal Alchemist and Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood in the form of tattoos, carvings, writings, etc is that "One is All, All is One" is a commonly recurring theme throughout the series. "One is All" (or "One is the All") is a quote from The Chrysopoeia of Cleopatra, an early alchemical text, on a page featuring the Ouroboros; as the name of the series implies, Fullmetal Alchemist [Brotherhood] is about alchemy. The ultimate creation of alchemy is the philosopher's stone, another commonly recurring object in Fullmetal Alchemist / Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood- in fact, it is not only a common object of discussion, but the central conflict and its resolution both tie in to philosopher's stones. The show never directly explains what the Ouroboros really signifies- it's basically imagery, something added for depth and detail that requires a tad bit of analysis to really understand why it's in there. In essence, it's a motif that ties in the central themes of the series in a neat little symbol, so I do not think that "any of an infinite number of other symbols" would be suitable, as Tamfang suggests. Just hoping to shed some light on why FMA fans seemed to feel that the show was relevant- personally, having watched the show, I'm not sure if it would add much to the main article, because again, the show never directly explains the significance or meaning of the Ouroboros- at least to my knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.225.61 (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Four elephants on the back of a turtle

The article says that "in some Hindu folk-myths, [the ouroboros is present] as the dragon circling the tortoise that supports the four elephants which support the world on their backs". Is that really Hindu myth? Not many pages on the internet supporting this are of much credit. It seems to be in fact a reference to a joke by Stephen Hawking in his book A Brief History of Time, or Terry Pratchett's Discworld series which contains itself lots of jokes on Stephen Hawking's books (See Turtles all the way down).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.19.78.161 (talk • contribs)

That same article cites a mention of this as a Hindu myth from a lecture by Bertrand Russell, directly below the Hawking quote. This myth is also mentioned on this page, giving "Cobb, Kelton, 2005, The Blackwell Guide to Theology and Popular Culture, Blackwell Publishing, ISBN 1-405-10698-0" as a citation. I also found the statement dubious, but I am convinced now. Any objections to removing the tag? -Elmer Clark 20:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 03:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Order of "Popular Culture" listings?

Isn't there any order to how items are listed in the trivia section? Why would the "Worm Ourobouros" be placed underneath "Legend of Dragoon"--The "Worm" is far more focused on the Ouroborous as a symbol that drives the events of the book; the book shouldn't just be a small footnote eclipsed by these consistent mentions of cameos in video games! The media which directly address the symbol should go the top, while the video game cameos and such go to the bottom.

PHP ouroboros

file: "ouroboros.php"

<html> <head> <style type="text/css"> <!-- div.container { width:250; height:250; } --> </style> <title>infinite divs</title> </head> <body> <div class="container"> <?php include ("ouroboros.php") ?> </div> </body> </html>

Get it? :]

This is a place for discussing improvements for the given article, not for posting "clever" code tricks. Besides, this is just a basic example of infinite recursion as opposed to something truly infinite. This code has a definite start but no end (although technically the interpreter should stop after a certain depth of including the same file, otherwise it will never complete processing and never render). The symbol has neither a true start or end as the end is going into (or coming out of, depending how you look at it) the head. MerlinYoda (talk) 16:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Chrysopoeia of Cleopatra

The famous ouroboros drawing from the early alchemical text The Chrysopoeia of Cleopatra dating to 2nd century Alexandria encloses the words hen to pan, "one, the all", i.e. "All is One". Its black and white halves represent the Gnostic duality of existence.

This sounds interesting. Can we get an image of this, if it's so 'famous'? Failing that, does anyone have a link to an image on the web?Avnas Ishtaroth (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a web page that shows this symbol and a couple more of ouroboroi: http://survive2012.com/index.php/2012-the-year-of-the-dragon.html . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.102.236 (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Plural

What's the plural of ouroboros?Avnas Ishtaroth (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ouroboroses"? Although, I don't think there's much call for a plural as it isn't technically associated with an actual physical thing. It's more a symbol associated with an idea. It's kinda like having a plural for "Love" or "Time". —Preceding unsigned comment added by MerlinYoda (talk • contribs) 16:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was a concept of anything other than One ouroboros. As I understand ancient Greek, if the singular ends with -os, than the plural would be -oi, ie Ouroboroi. MegX (talk) 03:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's a consonant-stem noun (in which case the plural might be -otes or –odes), but I see no reason to think that. —Tamfang (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if it is a consonant-stem noun, and even if you're right about how those plurals are formed, you're just showing off without knowing the answer. Be gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.122 (talk) 07:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

i know it is a old argument to bring back to light but following modern grammer than any plural for oroboros would have to be orobori. simular to the octopus/octopi argument. however infinity is infinite so its hard to have multiple infinities needing a plural form. same with oroboros.152.91.9.153 (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Just like scissors. USchick (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The word is used in the text as plural: "The Ouroboros often symbolize" - so, is this correct, should it read "The Ouroboros often symbolizes" -- or what?211.225.33.104 (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Jung

Was Jung a psychoanalyst? Carl Jung says he was a psychiatrist. Hyacinth (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of Jung, there is an extended quote in this section that says the alchemists "expressed this paradox" in the symbol of the ouroboros. You can find this whole block quote, copied and pasted all over the internet from Collected Works. No one bothers to explain what the "paradox" is. If we want this article to be actually informative, and rise above the majority of crap on the internet, it would be helpful to do as journalists used to, and find the paradox and include a brief explanatory phrase in square brackets. The paradox would have to be explained in the preceding paragraphs of the Collected Works where this quote is found. Adios, muchachos! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.21.128 (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Examples/Pictures

I think the page needs a more contemporary picture (of the symbol) to accompany the older art one present.

Ouroboroses exist in real life www.youtube-nocookie. com/embed/puKevC5boFg?color=white 212.110.138.191 (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Kirthimukha

The origin story of this temple decoration is very similar to ouroboros: a demon which consumes itself, ending up as a symbol adorning temple gates to represent the basic nature of existence and upon which spiritual development also ultimately rests (in its traditional sense). I suggest a link to the article on Kirthimukha, if its origin story is ever referenced there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.150.54 (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

There is already a kirtimukha page Kirtimukha. Note the different spelling. I tried to add the reference and it got removed as spam :-(

Rpm13 (talk) 16:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a kundalini thing

I know that the ouroboros is incredibly tightly tied to Kundalini, a spiritual energy that rests at *the tailbone* and *snakes* *up the spine* (releasing at *the head* or *cycling back* down the front of the body), but I don't have especially direct references to hand, does anyone else? With that relationship in place, the link to the caduceus is far less wobbly (the caduceus is a map of the energy channels involved during the kundalini ascension - the two spiralling snakes are the ida and pingala channels, the central rod is the spinal susumna, and the resulting fusion takes place in the region of the winged third eye / ajna chakra). K2709 (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Never Ending Story

Just wondering, why isn't there any mention of the two featured in the NES (Never Ending Story)? I don't know if they appear in the stupid movie version of the NES, but they are mentioned several times in the book, and, while their role isn't the most prominent one in the story, they end up being very symbolical towards the end of it. The NES one is of two snakes eating each other, one black, one white, and they represent some kind of symbiosis between the 'real world' and Fantasia. 66.25.254.123 (talk) 21:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent anon edits

The cited sources say that "Creation begins with the transition from unity to duality" and that "the entrance of the god at night into the body of Nut is equated with sexual union." They have nothing whatsoever to do with claims of "The main attribute of nocturnal dreams is reality warping" (and what does a comic-book superhero have to do with this?) or "the death of the vernal sun of Aries/Lamb (Christ)..." or most of the other claims being made. Even minus these more exceptional claims, there is nothing in the sources that mention or draw parallels with the Ouroboros image - that appears to be just the editor's interpretation. Ergative rlt (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

two headed snake

People can not search Two Headed Snake or similar terms to find this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.245.59 (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Painting

I've removed the painting of the mostly-nude woman. I saw no way in which it could possibly even remotely illustrate this topic. If someone puts it back, please provide an appropriate caption to explain its significance.

Even if it is remotely related, it doesn't make for a good lead illustration, since it doesn't convey the topic of the article at all. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I put it back with an extended caption, since it does show Ouroboros. It could use some explanation of the symbolism in context, which is given in the reference. I agree that in general a lead image should try to show primarily the specific subject, but the problem is that no individual image is the Ouroboros. (See commons:Category:Ouroboros.) Given this, I think an illustration that shows a particular symbolic use is acceptable. Feezo (Talk) 01:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. While I by no means endorse it (especially as a lead), its use makes more sense to me now. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added commons:File:Ouroboros-simple.svg as the lead image, as I think it most effectively illustrates the characteristic depiction of the Ouroboros. The painting is moved further down the page to give an example of symbolic use. 164.55.254.106 (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Nicely done! It's simple and clearly conveys the meaning, without being specific to a particular culture. I do have to add that while I agree with changing the image, I found Bob's description of the original picture (the 15th century Allegoria della vita umana) as "pornographic" somewhat inappropriate. It's perfectly acceptable to remove images that do not appear to to be relevant, but such language is needlessly inflammatory. Feezo (Talk) 23:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Much thanks for that! Also-- seeing as how nudity was not necessary in representing the subject (and it's not like it wasn't the focus of the image), I don't think my diagnosis of its nature was completely off-base. Had the article even been about art in that period or something related to the painting, I would not have referred to it as such. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ouroboros#Modern

Many of these items are trivial, giving no insight into Ouroboros. An entry should at the very least explain the use of the symbol, what it represents, and ideally the significance of its appearance in the work. A number of the entries do none of these, and hence I am going to remove them. Feezo (Talk) 06:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for restoring the section, so I'm going to remove it again. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 18:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

---

As a student of ancient Greek, I take issue with the popular translation of the Alexandrian text as "hen to pan." There is nothing ambiguous about the first and third letters of the third word. The first letter is omega but is being read as pi. The third letter is psi but is being read as nu. The middle letter is either omicron or alpha, but since the omega/omicron diphthong is not uncommon in ancient Greek, I surmise that it's omicron. Consequently, the three letters of the third word are omega, omicron, and psi--which would be akin to the word "ops", which means eye--rather than pi, alpha, and nu (pan). Nevertheless, people continue to perpetuate the mistranslation because they can't read the letters. Shinju (talk), 7:50 a.m., 29 July 2011. —Preceding undated comment added 11:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC).

Egypt section

I was asked about problems in the Egypt section of this article at WT:WikiProject Ancient Egypt#Atum equivalent to Scorpio?. I found that the section was riddled with synthesis; the statements had references, some of them reliable, but the individual statements were strung together in such a way as to suggest connections that the sources did not. Most of the section talked about the god Atum, who is connected with the ouroboros but is not necessarily synonymous with it. Most of the references mentioned Atum but not the ouroboros. One portion equated the constellation Scorpio with Atum, when the reference said only that the Egyptians saw a serpent constellation (no mention of Atum or the ouroboros) in the same area of the sky as the Greco-Roman Scorpio. To me, it looked like a tangled web of esoteric speculation, putting unwarranted mystical interpretations on ancient Egyptian belief.

That old section was such a mess that I rewrote it entirely, using only the sources that I have on hand: three books by Erik Hornung. It was minimal and could have used some fleshing out, but at least it was free of synthesis and esoterica. But the anonymous user 89.110.17.197 restored the old text, declaring my version "hopelessly inane and unsourced". I'm not sure exactly what "inane" was supposed to mean in this case; there's always the risk that text won't look as coherent to the reader as it does to the writer. But to say that what I wrote was unsourced is simply wrong.

The IP proceeded to rework and expand the Egypt section. The same problematic text remains, although it's been rearranged a bit, and still more has been added. Just because the Latin word penis also means "tail" does not mean that a Greek phrase meaning "tail in mouth" refers to autofellatio. Just because Egyptian mythology involves autofellatio does not mean that the ouroboros is connected with autofellatio. The statement that Atum is Scorpio is only very tenuously supported by its source, and the statement that Khepri is Aries has no support at all. No source supports the speculation that the Egyptians chose a serpent as a symbol of eternity because it has less bilateral symmetry than other creatures. Above all, no source with any credibility would say Osiris is equivalent to God the Son and Atum is equivalent to God the Father.

Anyone defending this version of the Egypt section needs to take a serious look at WP:No original research and especially WP:Synthesis. A. Parrot (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've just reverted again to remove the original research. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

"Judeo-Christianity" - section was original research

Looking at discussions above which took place over the past years, no one seems to see a reason for a section on Christianity. None of the sources in this section mention the Ouroboros, which makes it original research. And what is Judeo-Christianity anyway? Whoever thought of that subject heading perhaps didn't have English as their first language, as it seems to mean a type of Christianity. Please don't restore the section without reliable sources discussing the Ouroboros. And anyone who does needs to think of a better section heading. But from the looks of the discussion above, others have tried to source it but failed. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

"Whoever thought of that subject heading perhaps didn't have English as their first language, as it seems to mean a type of Christianity." Who could have thought that you are capable of original research, Dougweller! Steady as you go, wikipedo! —91.122.4.153 (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears that you aren't going to discuss whether this is original research, but just edit war to get your edits in the article. Please stop this. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

So, right now, the feeling is to keep this out of the article? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

So far as I'm concerned, yes. If anyone finds reliable sources discussing the Ouroboros and either Christianity or Judaism a new section can probably be created (with a different section heading of course). Thanks for your RPP request. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Plato section not germane

As someone with an advanced philosophy degree and Plato teaching experience, I am pretty sure that what Plato is talking about in that excerpt from Timaeus is not an Ouroboros. For one thing, the word is not used in Timaeus. But for another, the being described is clearly spherical, and not circular.

As far as further interpretation goes, this extract occurs in a portion of the dialogue in which Timaeus is describing the *entire universe* as a living creation of the Demiurge, not a particular entity within the universe. The references to sphericity, a lack of features and a complete self-sufficiency are intended to demonstrate the wholeness of the universe and how all elements are included within it, sort of a proto-mass/energy conservation idea.

-Matthew Weflen, M.A., Instructor at Wilbur Wright College (Chicago) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.156.41 (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

In reality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJYWziStNzs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.167.50 (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Kekule and the structure of benzene?

The chemist Kekule claimed that a dream of Ouroboros helped him to realize and explain the structure of benzene. Ouroboros is already cross-linked at the Kekule page. Should Kekule be mentioned and cross-referenced here, in the Main Article? AdderUser (talk) 05:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Recently removed

===Non-western traditions===

Some Hindu folk-myths have a snake (Adisesha) circling the tortoise Kurma that supports the eight elephants which support the world on their backs. However, the snake does not bite its own tail, but instead is calling itself into being through what some literary theorists have called a performative speech act.

Snakes are sacred in many West African religions. The demi-god Aidophedo uses the image of a serpent biting its own tail. The Ouroboros is also seen in Fon or Dahomean iconography as well as in Yoruba imagery as Oshunmare.

The god Quetzalcoatl is sometimes portrayed biting its tail on Aztec and Toltec ruins. A looping Quetzalcoatl is carved into the base of the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpent, at Xochicalco, Mexico, 700–900 A.D.

A map from the late Tokugawa Era named "Jishin-no-ben" has an Ouroborous encircling an area of Japan to explain the cyclic nature of earthquakes.

It's really not hard to verify this stuff. Type "Xochicalco Quetzalcoatl" into Google Images. Pointless impoverishment of the article. 92.30.23.198 (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If you provide references (other than google image) then I will support its insertion. Because Wikipedia should represent worldviews, currently it seems to be devoted to Western World Views and interest with a hostility to others. --Inayity (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I support this return of the section because I know of it from my earlier work in comparative religion. But I don't have time now to search for documentation. We can wait, can't we? I do support this section's return because it enriches the discussion. MaynardClark (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Jadran Mimica

The REASON a link was PUT IN for Jadran Mimica is because the Jadran Mimica page had been removed, and the link was otherwise dead. I don't think that this article is very well-read, but I think it's an important article to have AND that everything IN the article is interesting. I think tht better scholarship on Ourobouros could be developed, since the topic has recurred in literature for centuries, and the idea is ancient.

Middle Ages section

Is it sensible to allow citations that contradict accepted history? I question the validity of the assertion that the Albigensians may have been active in Mediaeval history much beyond the mid-13^th Century, when the siege of Montségur effectively ended their existence. Surely the Albigensians were themselves consigned to history long before the 15^th Century quoted in the article. Also, the accepted history of Tarot cards has them emerging first in the mid-15^th Century, long after the Albigensians had ceased to exist. Isn't the Ouroboros article in danger of re-writing history? --DStanB (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It was added at [1] by an IP and then various changes were made. Bayley isn't a reliable source - he was a student of the occult and a theosophist. "Fifteenth Century Playing Cards and Manuscripts" doesn't mention any of this - I'm assuming we were supposed to use the editor's interpretation of an image as a source. Another source, The Illuminatus! Trilogy, is " a satirical, postmodern, science fiction-influenced adventure story; a drug-, sex-, and magic-laden trek through a number of conspiracy theories, both historical and imaginary, related to the authors' version of the Illuminati." The Tarot: History, Symbolism, and Divination is ok for tarot cards and could be used, but the rest, no. I've deleted the whole paragraph. Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

If Bayley and/or Theosophists teach today something about Ouroboros, perhaps we can note that this is disputed and that 'a majority of historical scholars' (if that, truly, IS the case) think otherwise (about 'accepted history'). If questions about Ouroboros come from corners where Bayley and other sources are highly respected, I think that we 'ought' to cite that a (possible) source for the ideas which have been taught to them. I noted also that much 'modern' entertainment reference to this topic is added, and that surely is not serious scholarship. Some of it isn't even being referenced. MaynardClark (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Philosophical underpinnings - Monism?

Why no link to philosophical concepts of monism? is that not the idea, of the eternally self-parasitic unity of material? MaynardClark (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't remove "Figurative use" section

"Figurative use" section is too much interesting to be deleted. Don't need to be referenced when it's about media content because anybody can see the content on TV or Internet.

A reference is more than just a primary source. Has a secondary source documented (for example) how Ouroboros' appearance in a particular TV show affected its perception in modern culture? See discussion here and here. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 03:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Escher's Dragon?

M.C. Escher did a 1952 print called Dragon, which consists of a dragon eating its own tail (through itself); would this be appropriate to incorporate into the article? 12.218.76.10 (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The India material was worse than unsourced

For everyone's information, the notion of the Ouroboros in India was added entirely by an IP in these edits. His source was "http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1062027032". Yes, a forum thread on David Icke's website. I don't suppose anyone objects to removing this rubbish. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Tribal tattooing paragraph

File:Https://archive.is/i0s6m/38e13f1c8be623f957b18e2371e07fe0d0166eb5/scr.png

Kekulé's dream

This was a fabrication by Kekule. Because he already knew the structure of benzene from his friend and colleague Loschmidt (an Austrian scientist) who had proposed the possibility of a ring structure in detail to him. But Kekule rejected the idea, only to later publish it as his own. The made up story with the snake should legitimize his plagiarism.--213.147.167.205 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia just cites professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, we don't use original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

terminology

I attempted to feature related terms "Mehen serpent" and "Re-Osiris-mummiform" by using a descriptive passage/analysis written by John Coleman Darnell as it seemed useful to describe something that is currently stated as: "Both serpents are manifestations of the deity Mehen, who in other funerary texts protects Ra in his underworld journey". In the article as it stands the picture of "The first known appearance" shows only the upper body of this depiction whereas the quote describes it in it's entirety. These are the issues I saw, and if anyone ideas about addressing these concerns that would be cool.

Here was the passage I had included:

"Each composition has a large figure of Re-Osiris-mummiform on the second shrine of Tutankhamun and the enigmatic wall in the tomb of Ramesses IX, once snake-legged and once with the goddesses Isis and Nephthys forming his arms, on the Corridor G ceiling in the tomb of Ramesses VI. Although they are not identical, the great mummiform deities of the Tutankhamun and Ramesses IX treatises are further associated by the presence in front of each figure of a horizontally laid out text in Normalschrift referring to the protection of the deceased king from the noxious influences of unwanted divine messengers. The head and feet of the Tutankhamun deity are surrounded by a Mehen serpent" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flagrant hysterical curious (talk • contribs) 17:52, January 26, 2019 (UTC)

References

Related discussion occurred 26 January 2019 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doug_Weller/Archive_54 (Flagrant hysterical curious (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC))

Symbol origin

What is the origin of the symbol shown in the article, described as "Ouroboros swallowing its tail; based on Moskowitz's symbol for the constellation Draco"? I can't seem to find any source for this depiction. Username1230 (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)