Template talk:Caduceus confusion summary

NPOV

Wikipedia should not determine what is "correct" usage as the text currently does, only describe what other sources say. -- Beland (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, i've rechecked, and that is what this article does. Everything is supported by suitable citation. Several of us have looked and found no reputable citations suggesting that the summary here is incorrect. Can you be more specific? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 06:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"Medical Historians"

I removed the sentence "The initial errors leading to its adoption and the continuing confusion it generates are well known to medical historians" because it contains no useful information and seems to serve mostly as a summary of the preceding text. Shpowell (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing

The template states that "the long-standing and abundantly attested historical associations of the caduceus with commerce mean that many medical professionals consider it an inappropriate symbol to use in connection with medicine". This is sourced to page 205 of this article if you wish to read it.

I think there are two problems with this. The first is that the source is dated to 1929, making it almost 100 years old. I'm not sure that a 100 year old source could be used to say something about 2023.

The second is that the source doesn't appear to attest the above quotation. The closest it gets is the sentence "For a time the caduceus was used by the American Medical Association, but in 1912 after considerable discussion the official emblem embodying the Aesculapian Rod was adopted and is still in use". It seems like it's WP:OR to say that because one medical association prefers to use one symbol over the other that this means medical professionals in general consider its use inappropriate. Not only because we're talking about one association but also because to prefer one symbol over the other is not to say the other is inappropriate.

I think that better sourcing could be produced, but if not it should be removed. Reflecktor (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

A fair comment. A quick web search gave me

• Symbols of medicine BCMJ, vol. 64, No. 9, November 2022, Page 415 Back Page

By: James D. Warren, MD "Regardless, we still try to symbolize that medicine, at its best, is widely separated from commerce, though that may be a false hope sometimes. Hermes, god of commerce, is still at the door."

Issue: BCMJ, vol. 64, No. 9, November 2022, Page 415 Back Page (BC Medical Journal)

• The Caduceus vs. Staff of Aesculapius - One Snake or Two? National Library of Medicine "The Staff of Aesculapius has represented medicine since 800 BCE and most authorities support its use as the symbol of medicine.

The Staff of Aesculapius is the only true symbol of medicine." (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

• Caduceus and Asclepius: History of an Error

summary: the Caduceus is wrong so why does error persist? (ajp.psychiatryonline.org)

(On mobile, risk losing all that, so saving now, more to follow.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

and another:

• "In the West [the Caduceus] has been adopted as a symbol of medicine since the 19th century, probably because of its similarity to the serpent of Epidaurus on the staff of Aesculapius. It is generally considered less suitable for pharmacy than the one snake motif, but is more popular for use as a general medical symbol."

https://www.rpharms.com/Portals/0/MuseumLearningResources/13%20Pharmaceutical%20Symbols.pdf?ver=2020-02-06-154400-460 (Royal Pharmaceutical Society)

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)