Talk:Rod of Asclepius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents

[edit] Astrology and the Rod

Still looking up some things on this item, so forgive my comments if I'm out of line. I'm still a bit concerned about the language "the Greek pantheon of the Zodiac." The Greek Pantheon, while tangentially related to the zodiac, does not really seem to have an important relation to astrology for the purposes of this section of the article. Perhaps what is needed is a separate section in this article on the Rod's astrological significance? KrazyCaley 10:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I divided the article into essentially two sections- one has information on the classical Greek mythology side of this symbol, and the other contains the astrological angle introduced by Theo. Any thoughts on this new layout? KrazyCaley 17:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

the Greek mythology and Christian Theology parts which you placed under Astrology are a little out of place, don't you think? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I found it difficult to separate Theo's thoughts on the astrological stuff from his explanations of such stuff's origin in Greek mythology (or relation to Christianity, etc.). If you can edit in a way to hash the two subjects out more clearly, that would be awesome. KrazyCaley 18:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
There was nothing in that which referenced astrology at all except the one word "astrological" in the sentence "This astrological symbol is now used as the symbol of western medicine." I took out "astrological" as it is redundant with the preceeding sentence. If there is astrological significance to this symbol, Theo left it out of his additions. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
It would seem that way. I was under the impression that he was coming with more significant astrological additions; apparently this symbol has great sigificance in an astrological context. Thus my attempt at bisecting the article. Until such time as more NPOV astrological info. comes down from Theo, I support your most recent revision; it's certainly a good bit more coherent than mine. KrazyCaley 22:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
From whoever... I agree though, to support a separate section there needs to be more data. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Crap, forgot to sign. That was me. KrazyCaley 22:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] undo

the source is a online version of An encyclopedia of religions / by Maurice A. Canney. Publisher: London, G. Routledge & sons, ltd. New York, E. P. Dutton & co., 1921. Description: Book —Preceding unsigned comment added by RapidReferenceWriter (talk • contribs) 17:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The source is citation spam - appropriate citation details are not provided, merely a link to a google ad-sense revenue generation site that claims copyright on the content, and has no reputation. This editor has been mass adding these links (apparently in alpha order) to many articles, in many case in places where the linked page does not support the assertion or as a simple reference link in the reference section of an article. A 1921 encyclopedia is rarely an appropriate citation for general assertions in a modern encyclopaedia, and this particular effort is simply spam. -- SiobhanHansa 17:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] worm thing

It does not seem to have the best of sources. It's original link leads to a kind of blog, which quotes this PBS website (that quote is the 'source' for the worm section)- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/sfeature/pop_post_01a.html which only says this much "Guinea worm is an ancient affliction. An Egyptian medical text from the 15th century B.C. mentions it, and scientists found a calcified worm in the mummy of a thirteen-year-old girl who lived in Egypt around 1000 B.C. A Sanskrit poem from the 14th century B.C. includes the plea, "Let not the sinuous worm strike me nor wound my foot." and does not have the extra bit about the worm and rod thing that the blog quoted.

So, unless someone has a better source, I'm thinking perhaps it should be removed as pure speculation? At least the Asclepius root is fairly verifiable Novium 09:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Try this one, very reputable source-
Is that ok? Owain.davies 06:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, not all that reputable for the topic at hand. That's just a medical association. I'd say it'd work if it had a source for it, but all it says is "Another possible explanation for the origin of the snake and staff as a symbol of healing is found in primitive societies, particularly those in tropical areas, where one of the major parasites is the guinea worm. At certain stages in its life cycle the worm buries itself in the skin of its hosts. Traditionally one way to remove the worm has been to insert a stick into the worm's "burrow". The worm will coil itself around the stick and so be removed."... which still is nothing more than speculation, since, even accepting that as true, it doesn't provide evidence that the worm thing is the root of the symbol. It doesn't have any research into it. It reminds me of false etymologies- they sound good, and *could* be true. What we need is something that is a little more specific and a little less urban legend sounding. Novium 14:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's fairly reputable - a national governing body. In any case, it is one of a number of theories presented, and its use here is a good indicative that some people view it as a viable theory. Owain.davies 19:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it may be a national institution, but is it a national institution that is qualified to comment on the historical roots of something without citing a source for that information? I can find plenty of factually incorrect information concerning history on the webpages of many governmental agencies. Why? because it isn't important to their purpose, nor is it anything but a nicety to tie things together. There are plenty of 'popular facts'- things that everyone knows, everyone repeats, and gets echoed by so many different sources and people that it seems accurate, and gets reported as true. That the romans had rooms for throwing up called "vomitoriums", or sowed the earth around the ruins of carthage with salt, or that viking helmets had horns are a few examples of that popular knowledge. So. What this needs- to avoid looking like one of those things- is an actual source. A proper one. Not merely another example of "some people say" - which might as well be "a man in a pub told me", no matter who it is coming from. Novium 05:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that as information on Wikipedia goes, this is a reputable enough source to meet WP:V, especially when it is presented as one of several theories. As this is a historical item, definitive proof is practically impossible, so presenting a published theory here is properly encyclopaedic. Owain.davies 15:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
it's not a published theory though. I know full well the limits of historical research; however, it would be properly encyclopedic to research where they idea of the worm theory came from. Whose theory is it? This is the reason some random government agency page, telling the story without referencing where they themselves got it from, doesn't cut it, as far as I see it, especially not with the article saying "some scholars". We better have proof that some actual scholars actually said it. Novium 23:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] asclepious carrying snakes with him

I recall that asclepious suposedly carried snakes with him, who would help him with his healing, I have read a source which records a suposed appearance of asclepious at a temple, where he instructs his snakes to lick a blind mans eyes and this cures him. I remember it was in some history text book. has anyone els heard of any similar storys about assclepious apearing and instucting his snakes to heal someone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.125.13 (talk) 22:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrectly used?

I removed the phrase "The caduceus is often incorrectly used as a symbol for medicine or doctors, in place of the rod of Asclepius which is the usual symbol of the medical profession." because the next sentence was "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." 76% of commercial organizations in America using the caduceus means it's incorrect? I later looked at the drblayney.com citation and reverted that edit. I looked again and the citation says "correct" — with quotation marks around it. So I still doubt this sentence: "The caduceus is often incorrectly used as a symbol for medicine or doctors, in place of the rod of Asclepius which is the usual symbol of the medical profession." The section should probably note usage in different countries, instead of saying one way is "correct" or "incorrect" or "usual" or not. Based on the reference to Dr Keith Blayney, it's clear that the caduceus is "usual" when speaking of commercial health organizations in the United States. If it's usage is considered correct in a certain country, that should be mentioned. If it's usage is considered traditional or historically correct, that should be mentioned. The section should say where it is considered correct. --Pixelface (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the 76% of the commercial organisations using it are incorrect! Just because something is used widely, doesn't mean it's right. You can see that most medical professionals (rather than commercial entities) use the correct rod of asclepius. The usage by commercial companies is not considered correct by any authority, just by themselves - and nobody is likely to force them in to a logo change. The article does note that it is widely used, so i don't see any change as being necessary. Owain.davies (talk) 17:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
We should probably cite another source, a reliable source, that speaks of the correct usage — not just a source that says "correct." --Pixelface (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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) 01:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)