Talk:Hippocratic Oath

Translation discussion

This is a collation of the 10+ years of posts regarding inquiries about the translation or source of the original text. please start any new discussion of this as a subheading in the current year in the interest of keeping the talk page coherent. please remember that the talk page is about making the article better. if you have an alternate translation, please tell us why you think its better or interesting! If you find another reputable source, please tell us about their sources and why this makes it better to avoid duplication.

---

2004

Source of quoted oath

I have removed:

(PBS/Johns Hopkins; but please also note that the Johns Hopkins source words the ancient Oath differently from the above, which is apocryphal/unsourced)

as part of a revision. The writer makes a very important point that the Oath quoted is unreferenced as to the source. Does anyone have a source or should we replace this version with one for which there is a credible source? --CloudSurfer 22:42, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I edited this article to cut out opinionated statements. Words such as "strongly," etc. should be left out. 63.233.105.209 03:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The second paragraph seems a bit awkward: "It is thought to be written by Hippocrates by some scholars..." Couldn't it be phrased better, maybe like this: "Some scholars believe it was written by Hippocrates..."

dhughes UTC 01:41 December 08, 2005

Either way is fine216.56.21.190 15:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Resolved

---

2006

Changing sentence

I'm changing "Most scholars believe that the oath was written by Hippocrates..." to "It's widely believed that the oath was written by Hippocrates...?" It's seems clear from reading other articles that it's not the case that 'most scholars' believe he wrote the oath. Dictionary.com states: "He is traditionally but inaccurately considered the author of the Hippocratic oath." the Wikipedia Hippocrates article states: "The best known of the Hippocratic writings is the Hippocratic Oath; however, this text was most likely not written by Hippocrates himself." --Ledavee 11:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Resolved

---

2007

Original source in Latin/Greek

It would be desirable to include (or reference) the original text of the oath (in greek/latin). Anybody knows?

Regards.

Added the Greek version. Took it from Greek Wikipedia and divided it into paragraphs to match the English, for ease of comparison. Not sure what value the Latin would add. kwami 05:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as an original Greek text or has the oath been in continuous evolution?Ep9206 (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Continuous evolution in the scriptoria doesn't rule out survival of faithful versions. In any case, it's branching evolution, so it's a lot like inferring the nature of the common ancestors of modern animals beyond what the fossil record shows, as in the prediction of the characteristics of the coelecanths. An classic textual example is the inference of a lost Q document underlying two of the canonical Gospels.
--Jerzy•t 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The Greek version is an addition of so little value in an English encyclopedia that it is merely unencyclopedic clutter here, tho high-class clutter.
Evidently it is in classical rather than modern Greek, but it should be discarded and an ext lk to a reliable source added to the accompanying article -- if one can be determined.
--Jerzy•t 05:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

There is an original classical Greek text, I have it in a book with a modern Greek translation. It also a volume of the Loeb classical library with english translation Blex areton (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I am changing one thing. The second block is not "transliterated into Latin" but "Greek transliterated into Latin characters". There is quite a difference between the two. 68.55.132.231 (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the difference is one makes sense, one does not. Latin, despite the claims of computer programs is not the name of a specific alphabet. I guess it might be quibbling, but as Wikipedia has wars over "Scot" v. "Scotch" it seems no less relevant to insist on calling them "Latin characters" (or "Latin alphabet") rather than "Latin" (which is the name of language). 68.55.132.231 (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC) I notice that in Science, wisdom has its timeline and man with his hands has aided others. The concious behaviour of psychology does include life as the genius only. This is an indication of intelligence that has no particular score. The promise to pass human beings in control is the intention and not unconcious behavior its superior. Psychiatry is not candidate for the hippocratic oath as it is only a labor against faith in the modern age and fails classical convention of wisdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yerkes.Jeanes (talk • contribs) 05:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Wrong words

I am not sure exactly what the hyppocratic oath section should be, but im sure its not really supposed to read:

To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.

Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion.

But I will preserve the purity of my life and my "farts."

-tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.169.188 (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolved

EB version

Here's the somewhat more archaic translation in the 15th ed. of the EB:

I will look upon him who shall have taught me this Art even as one of my parents. I will share my substance with him, and I will supply his necessities, if he be in need. I will regard his offspring even as my own brethren, and I will teach them this Art, if they would learn it, without fee or covenant. I will impart this Art by precept, by lecture and by every mode of teaching, not only to my own sons but to the sons of him who has taught me, and to disciples bound by covenant and oath, according to the Law of Medicine.

The regimen I adopt shall be for the benefit of my patients according to my ability and judgment, and not for their hurt or for any wrong. I will give no deadly drug to any, though it be asked of me, nor will I counsel such, and especially I will not aid a woman to procure abortion. Whatsoever house I enter, there will I go for the benefit of the sick, refraining from all wrongdoing or corruption, and especially from any act of seduction, or male or female, of bond or free. Whatsoever things I see or hear concerning the life of men, in my attendance on the sick or even apart therefrom, which ought not to be noised abroad, I will keep silence thereon, counting such things to be as sacred secrets.

kwami 06:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Modern Versions

This page should more prominently lead readers to modern versions. Mathiastck 15:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there is some importance to including the classical version of the oath which I know to pre-date the "Nova" citation, notwithstanding its archaic language, for the shocking change made to the substance of the oath, which had before been to teach all persons seeking the art free of charge.

72.236.237.105 01:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• Mathiastck, I added a photograph of Dr. Lasagna from his biography page, and expanded the link to his version. I also expanded the two references that were there to a site in the UK. I am not a student of medicine but at least the source for what this article says can be read. -Susanlesch 08:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I like the addition. -- Rmrfstar 13:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

---

2008

Where's the line about abortion?

The abortion article (and non-Wikipedia sources) say the Hippocratic oath forbids abortion by pessary but there is no mention of that here. Either this article should be corrected to include a more accurate translation and the abortion article should be corrected to remove mention of the Hippocratic Oath and/or this article should be updated to mention the relevant bit in the section about modern alterations.

Given how controversial abortion is, it's hard for me to NOT see this as being politically motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logomachist (talk • contribs) 02:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In the text of the article right now, it says "Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy." -- AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that the ancient Greek knew about pessaries. Obviously something was added in the translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.142.143.162 (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been corrected. Dumaka (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The standard Greek lexicon defines πεσσός (the word used in the Greek text) as "medicated plug of wool or lint to be introduced into the vagina, anus, etc." "Abortive remedy" is loose paraphrase, and we should prefer a literal translation here (with explanation of anything that is difficult or requires comment, rather than interpretation disguised as translation). Moreover, Dumaka's edit destroyed many wikilinks and caused the footnote source reference to be in error. I believe the reason we have this translation in there now is because it is attributable to a reliable source. It should be replaced only by a more authoritative version (perhaps G.E.R. Lloyd's in the Penguin). I don't care about the interpretive debate here; I just want to see a translation that accords with the Greek (and ideally is recent and by an expert on Hippocratic medicine), with a clear citation of its source. For now, the cited NIH text is more accurate on this point and agrees with the citation. Wareh (talk) 16:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The wikilinked term pessary refers to an item made of plastic or silicon, which makes the idea that this was translated from the Greek quite suspect. The cited article also doesn't give any indication that a pessary might be to do with abortion, other than a circular reference pointing back to this article, and that in turn makes the entire affair very suspect, making Wikipedia look like a victim of politics. Wikipedia cannot solve political battles, but it can document them and it can insulate itself from being a patsy of them by at least acknowledging the fact of disputes. If you look at this article, there is no indication of a dispute around this point, and at minimum there should be, preferably with an even-handed explanation of the reason for that dispute. --Netsettler (talk) 19:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

A pessary is a vaginal suppository. That's it. It doesn't matter what it's made of, and that's the original text in the Oath. Wikipedia can't solve political battles so it shouldn't be participating in them to begin with by deliberately mistranslating the earliest examples of the Oath. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The word is φθόριον "fluorine", that means a remedy (chemical substance; medication) for abortion: Ὁμοίως δὲ οὐδὲ γυναικὶ πεσσὸν φθόριον δώσω. So let us, please, stop talking about pessary. The word "pessary" derives from the year 1910 (Oath of Hippocrates. In: Harvard Classics, Volume 38. Boston: P.F. Collier and Son, 1910.). see: http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/hippocrates/

See French wikipedia: semblablement, je ne remettrai à aucune femme un pessaire abortif https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessaire 2003:E8:5F0D:F200:FD03:2510:A0B7:7E4D (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

---

2009

Modern Versions of the Hippocratic Oath

There are several different versions of the Hippocratic Oath used in different countries by the Physicians Orders. I can give the example of the Mexican Hippocratic Oath version who openly condemns abortion, taking a pro-life stance, like in many other countries. I will try to find the right sources.213.13.242.135 (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

in the interest of avoiding duplication, please read and post any similar comments in the relevant article.

Resolved

Catholic doctors

I noticed that there were associations of Catholic doctors that held to the original version of the Hippocratic oath in their opposition to abortion and euthanasia. There should perhaps be additional information on how these medical associations interpret the Hippocratic oath. Another issue would be to verify whether these medical associations have their own oaths and whether they officially replace the words Apollo and Asclepius by Jesus Christ and Catholic Church. ADM (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

that's an interesting idea. Catholic Church and health care#Contemporary_issues Medical ethics feel free to add a short sentence then link to the relevant article on this topic to avoid duplication if it seems necessary.

Resolved

---

2013

Delete American version.

The two translations of the Oath that are given seem merited because they are translations. The American "version" of the Oath should be deleted. There are many versions of the Oath so there is no reason to include one vesrion and not others. Many comments here refer to the other versions that are used. In my opinion there is far greater merit in including the [Declaration of Geneva |Geneva]] version than Dean Lasagna's one, but that is not an argument so to do. LookingGlass (talk) 09:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. There was no discussion or attempt to reach consensus before making wholesale changes to the Modern American version. I don't mind that version being included -- but removing the original version without any discussion was a bit hasty. I'm reverting it back. Lordvolton (talk) 02:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad this is resolved. that wasnt a "version of the hippocratic oath" in the technical sense but a result of semantic shift whereby the term "Hippocratic Oath" has become synonymous with medical ethics, similar to the way the word toilet is used.

Resolved

---

2014

Translation of the original oath

The Original oath is sourced to a 19th-century book where it is written in Greek. That means that the translation is either (a) the original editor's own, and therefore original research, or (b) taken from some other source, not specified, which might or might not be copyright. I suggest replacing it with this translation from The London Medical Repository of 1 March 1825. --Scolaire (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done it. Scolaire (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears to have been changed to a non-identifiable and rather inauthentic 'source' already. I've added a list of a few reputable sources in a section of the talk page further up (English and Greek). With so many people pointing out that the Wiki page "original" is not authentic it seems strange that is has been allowed to continue. Even the first line is a bit of a sham, editing out Asklepius. Parzivalamfortas 23:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

---

2015

"Original" oath

If the oldest surviving version of the oath is from 43 BCE, claiming it to be the original when we know this not to be the case is incorrect. Rather than declare an edit war, I'd like suggestions on what to rename that section.--~TPW 16:43, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Since it's been a year and a half with no reply, I've decided to be bold and try something out. I'm going to leave a notice on your talk page, but I leave it open to all to develop consensus on a better title if mine is inadequate. I do, however, agree that it is highly misleading that the earliest manuscript be cited as the "original oath." Kakurokuna (talk) 18:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

translation

There are many sources and the Oath as quoted is a very poor rendering. See: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/266652/Hippocratic-oath http://classics.mit.edu/Hippocrates/hippooath.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5FHZx0oOqs https://www.einstein.yu.edu/uploadedFiles/EJBM/page41_page44.pdf http://www.hellenism.net/cgi-bin/forums/Blah.pl?m-1345682787/

The current Wiki 'version' doesn't even include the Greek God of Medicine (I don't have time to make the necessary amendments just now but I hope someone else will -- and include sources (feel free to use the above!) Parzivalamfortas 23:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

2017

Modern version by Dr. Lasagna (1964)

According to this source, which is PBS, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/hippocratic-oath-today.html , the modern version of the Oath written by Dr. Louis Lasagna in 1964 is incorrectly quoted by the Wikipedia article as it currently stands. The version PBS gives is:

Hippocratic Oath: Modern Version

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.

—Written in 1964 by Louis Lasagna, Academic Dean of the School of Medicine at Tufts University, and used in many medical schools today.

The Wikipedia article as it currently stands omits the part I have bolded.

I am adding the section back in, and posting a reference to my source.

Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

UPDATE: I notice that the version previously in the Wikipedia article says "I will prevent disease whenever I can but I will always look for a path to a cure for all diseases," but the version given in my source (PBS) says "I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure." HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

FURTHER UPDATE: I see that the section on taking life was removed in 2016 by an anonymous user, with no comment or justification for the change. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

"oath" or "Oath"?

True Pagan Warrior's recent edit raises an interesting question: the article is inconsistent about the capitalization of "oath." I had been leaning towards capitalizing it since it is a proper noun referring to a specific oath, but I'm interested in hearing some other ideas. Kakurokuna (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

it's currently capitalised, I assume this has been finalised.

Resolved

Misleading

The article seems misleading in implying that only sections of the hippocratic oath have been dropped in some places.

As far as I know it isn't actually used (or sworn) by doctors in most of the first world. Certainly it isn't in the UK.

Does any country actually still use it?

--BozMo|talk 11:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am failrly certain it is still taught and referred to but I don't whether it is still formally recited as a "pledge" at graduation ceremonies anywhere. The article suggests that formal ceremonial use is declining but I don't know whether it is extinct. I doubt it but can't prove it. Alteripse 11:54, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What do we mean by "use?" A survey of 150 medical schools in Canada and in the United States in 1993 reported that almost none "use" it. Many "use" a form of it, with many alterations. Its relevance is a big question if its modifications have evolved it into something like meaningless wedding vows; or even impotent Dutch law and medical guidelines.Ep9206 (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the following sentence: "Also missing from the ancient Oath and from many modern versions are the complex ethical issues associated with HMOs, living wills, and whether morning-after pills are technically closer to prophylactics or an abortion."

The final statement about emergency contraception seems biased to me. I could not think of a good ethical example to replace it with, so I removed the whole sentence, which did not add much to the article, imho. I believe this statement is biased since the medical profession generally understands that the 'morning after pill' is chemically identical to birth control pills. Whether EC/oral contraceptives are an abortion is a matter of debate in the general public and religious sphere, and not generally a debate of the medical profession. Thus, reference to this debate does not belong in an article about the Hippocratic Oath. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.15.96 (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with this as someone has reverted the sentance back in, am removing it again Judderman85 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Have removed all specific references and just replaced it with the more neutral "modern practice" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judderman85 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Modern medical ethics should be directed to that article.

Resolved

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

This article is a part of five WikiProjects, and has been rated "C-class" for four of them, and "Start Class" for the fifth. Meganszymanski (talk) 23:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Internal consistency

It would be helpful if the “modern relevance” section used quotes from the same version used in the “the classical oath” section. -Ahruman (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Textual Criticisms

As for what is meant or if there is any reliable source of the oath, this article could certainly use a section that uses "the knife" in understanding what is meant by any of the text. Is the use of "the knife," refer literally to using knives, or is there any critical interpretation such as "avoidance of unnecessary invasive surgery," or other? It's hard to believe that anybody would blanketly condemn systematic diagnosis.Ep9206 (talk) 17:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

it means I will not practice surgery unless i am trained to do so. surgery was and is a specialised practice that not all doctors are trained to perform. for example, one could train as a pharmacist or apothecary. this is what is meant by dietetic remedies elsewhere in the oath. herbal preparations you eat or drink of which most were very cleansing and restorative purgatives(extreme vomiting and pooping.) cures all that ails you. you can read all about this in latin and greek compendiums.Silphium

Resolved

Modern Relevance in need of NPOV

The bit "3. Never to do ... Consent" seems very, very biased. Why does it claim areas like Oregon or countries like The Netherlands allow doctors "murder" patients without the consent of patients?! This is not just biased, in fact, it is plain wrong. The reference given is a one-sided list of articles and op-eds on Dutch 'killing'. I'd like to refer readers to the Dutch Wikipedia which goes over the law regulating euthanasia in The Netherlands, but it boils down to this: in order for euthanasia to take place there must, in direct contradiction to what this article claims, be clear and prior consent by the patient. The 'source' (number 4) on all these allegations refers to an article that also just rants about how Dutch doctors run around killing people left and right, clearly not something one would like to see as a foundation for encyclopedic material. Most irritatingly, that rant itself provides no sources for any of its claims, especially some of the more outlandish ones. I'm not used to Wikipedia's tagging style, but I'm going to go and find one that's either NPOV of sources related and slap it on here. Wouter de Groot (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Turns out this was an edit by a single user, adding in the questionable source and biased text. Reverted. Wouter de Groot (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

After someone felt the need to put the word killing back in there I've changed it back to "perform euthanasia" so that the argument about killing, murdering and whatnot can take place at the linked article, where it should. In this context it should be objectively clear what is going on: euthanasia. Whether someone feels this is murder or not is beside the point for this article. Wouter de Groot (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

good points. discussion of modern medical ethics issues should go to the relevant medical ethics page or Euthanasia in the Netherlands. Such pages link back here so there is no need to duplicate edit wars from politically volatile pages with a far greater focus on the subject.

Resolved

First do no harm

I think it's a widely held misconception that this oath contains the words "First do no harm." I think the article should mention this, and the probable source for that phrase. Thoughts? -- Mjworthey (talk) 18:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This page discusses the matter a bit. Really though, I don't know how important this matter is. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Euthanasia and abortion

Medical ethicist Dr. Daniel Sokol, in writing A guide to the Hippocratic Oath for BBC, writes:

[This] part seemingly concerns euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, saying: "And I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked, nor will I suggest the way to such a counsel."
Two leading scholars of the Oath, Littre and Miles, have however suggested that this passage alludes to the then common practice of using doctors as skilled political assassins.
Steven Miles notes: "Fear of the physician-poisoner may be traced very close to the time of the Oath."
The word "euthanasia" (meaning "easeful death") was only coined a century after the writing of the Oath.
Abortion
The text continues: "And likewise I will not give a woman a destructive pessary."
This passage is often interpreted as a rejection of abortion.
However, abortion was legal at the time and the text only mentions pessaries (a soaked piece of wool inserted in the vagina to induce abortion), not the oral methods of abortion also used in ancient Greece.
As pessaries could cause lethal infections, the author of the Oath may have had a clinical objection to the method, rather than a moral objection to abortion itself.

Pawyilee (talk) 03:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why this was added in the first place but I changed it to the true The Hippocratic Oath translation so people are not feed wrong information. Dumaka (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I also question whether it is appropriate to link "I will not give a drug that is deadly to anyone if asked" to euthanasia. My understanding was that the passage forbade doctors from selling and recommending poisons to would-be killers. Greg Comlish (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

These are simply modern day interpretations, all the tradition interprets the original Hippocratic Oath as a condemnation of abortion and infanticide. I can give you Margaret Mead opinion : "For the first time in our tradition there was a complete separation between killing and curing. Throughout the primitive world, the doctor and the sorcerer tended to be the same person. He with the power to kill had power to cure, including specially the undoing of his own killing activities. He who had the power to cure would necessarily also be able to kill...With the Greeks the distinction was made clear. One profession, the followers of Asclepius, were to be dedicated completely to life under all circumstances, regardless of rank, age or intellect - the life of a slave, the life of the Emperor, the life of a foreign man, the life of a defective child..." [1]213.13.242.135 (talk) 21:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a textual criticism here The Hippocratic Oath: A Commentary and Translation Prepared by Howard Herrell. What I find interesting is that the suggestion that H. wouldn't give a pessary to a woman because that would circumvent the rights of the male. At any rate, he did give advice to his kinswoman on how to effect an abortion http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/wlgr/wlgr-medicine341.shtml. and I think that should be mentioned in the controversy section. The Margaret Mead quotation is irrelevant, as it doesn't mention abortion. Ermadog (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The article of Howard Herrell states that the original text and historical context of the Hippocratic Oath is free for different interpretations. "First, as has already been stated, other parts of the Corpus Hippocratum discuss abortion techniques. But what does this prove? As many have pointed out, virtually every principle expounded in the Oath is elsewhere contradicted in the Corpus Hippocratum. Might there be a reason that the techniques of abortion are delineated, yet abortion is prohibited? Pliny the Elder's Natural History from the 1st century BC lists several compounds and methods known to cause abortion (Nardi, 1971). But Pliny was clearly opposed to abortion. He characterizes abortions as scelera or crimes (XXVIII, 7) and says that it makes humans worse than beasts (X, 63). When he discusses raven's eggs in XXX, 14, he clearly demonstrates that his purpose in discussing their abortifacient ability is to warn pregnant women to avoid them. So it is conceivable that the descriptions of abortion methods in the Corpus Hippocratum were provided for the sake of knowledge, more than for the sake of describing a potential procedure. Thus, the presence of information on abortions in the Corpus Hippocratum does not in and of itself contradict the Oath." Margaret Mead quote isn't strictly speaking about abortion but about the respect for human life in general.81.193.190.183 (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, the article is remiss for using the reference to abortion without explanation that there is a dispute as to interpretation and a direct explanation of the reasoning. I should not have had to read the Talk section to get a proper understanding of what's going on here. --Netsettler (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I came here to discuss this issue but ended up cleaning up the talk page first. I will explain the issue for you and give you textual references. The translation is based on an extremely liberal translation of IG II 985/CGRN 191 http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/file/191/. In the study of ancient languages they reference item reference numbers and the collection to which it belongs. SIG stands for a german collection of Greek Inscriptions or, Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum. The standard practice involved tracing paper and rubbing a pencil over the inscription to make an impression. so these collections were the closest thing they had to taking a photo in the field of words carved into stone. now because of weathering/ reusing materials to build other things these inscriptions get broken up and bits fall off over time. So we dont have the complete text. So they sort of guess the bits that are missing. there are also other issues like its expensive and you run out of space so things end up being written like a telegram. you work around defects and try to fit as many letters as you can into the space you have so the grammar isnt always perfect or complete but it communicates the general message. So that page i linked has the pencil and squeeze copy of the inscription from 500 years ago converted to text. the original is locked away somewhere safe in an archive in Vienna because its a 500 year old carbon copy and the original site is unknown or destroyed. we'll never see it so all we have is the text. So when you look up the concordance in perseus-tufts liddell & scott collection you find, "A drug for producing abortion, SIG985.20 (Philadelphia, i B. C.): pl., IG12 (1).789.12 (Lindos, ii A. D.); cf. φθόριος 1." as the definition and reference. "SIG985.20 (Philadelphia, i B. C.)" refers to SIG 985 line 20 from 1st century BC, Philadelphia in ancient turkey. now here's where it gets interesting. the bits in brackets are the imaginary guessing parts they added to it because it seemed right. you can see it for yourself in that link by pressing the show/hide restorations button. I'll give a brief rough translation derived from a concordance of the available texts.

19...μὴ

no

20φίλτρον, μὴ φθορεῖον, μὴ [ἀτ]οκεῖον, μ[ὴ ἄλλο τι παιδο]-

Philtre(love potions) no (φθορεῖον ????) no contraceptives, no anything to do with children

φόνον μήτε αὐτοὺς ἐπιτελεῖν μήτε [ἑτέρωι συμβου]-

killing no doing these things no doing these things in groups

λεύειν μηδὲ συνιστορεῖν, ἀποστερ[οῦντες δὲ μη]-

δὲν εὐνοεῖν τῶι οἴκωι τῶιδε, καὶ ἐὰν τ[ις τούτων τι ποι]-

ῆι ἢ ἐπιβο[υλε]ύῃ, μήτε ἐπιτρέψειν μή[τε παρασιω]-

19 μή

no

20φίλτρον, μὴ φθορεῖον, μὴ οκεῖον, μ

philtre, no φθορεῖον, no home, no

φόνον

killing

I'll get to the translation of φθορεῖον in a moment, this is the word they interpret as abortion but the greeks already had a word for abortion, ἄμβλωσι. it's the same word across dorian, ionic, attic and koine texts. there are multiple instances of it being used perfectly in this context in the perseus-tufts library. So what has happened is that they dont know what the words were because they were destroyed. so we guess what they meant. then we find this other word, φθορεῖον and say hey well we made up these words over here so this word must mean what we made up too so we'll say that φθορεῖον is related to killing children so it must mean abortion. but the thing is that we actually have multiple examples of a conjugation of this word, φθορεύς in lots of other extant texts which means to seduce or corrupt. so all we can positively derive from this part of the text is that this private cult in lydia wasnt a place to hook-up or commit ritual murders. what a kill-joy.

The reason this is relevant is that this is the same word which is translated in the Hippocratic oath as abortion. So it may as well be translated as no seducing patients ie. diddling while performing gynaecological procedures. although this word is complex because corruption, as a theme in ancient greece was a result of the progress of time, recalling the platonic ideals, things once existed in their perfect, pure form but fall to decay over time. So in this context f'thoreon can also mean wear like a pair of jeans or a virgin on her prima nocta. so it's still not totally clear what is meant although it seems more likely that creative well intentioned fabrications have served as a skandalon in regards to properly translating this text.

note that this isnt original research, i'm just critiquing a source for its merits. of which it has little in regards to the accurate translation. 49.198.45.217 (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep In Mind

Hey, The page isn't for writing the hippocratic oath. The hippocrat oath already exist doctors aren't checking wikipedia for what the hippocratic oath says. So if a version of the oath says something, then it says it. The oath isn't the writers biass or antones politics. Everything isn't politics, and the oath is one of those things —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.128.54 (talk) 17:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd hope doctors (or anyone else) aren't checking Wiki as the arbiter of anything of significance.Jmdeur (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The oath has become very political if it was not always so. This is made clear by the American "vesrion" of it. LookingGlass (talk) 09:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

Modern Use

It says "the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine, although nowadays the modernized version of the text varies among the countries." I mean as far as I know e.g in the UK no doctor takes the hippocratic oath and I thought its use elsewhere was an urban myth (although in the new countries where traditions are invented is possible I guess). --BozMo talk 09:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The only source for "most" I can find is a user generated article on the BBC website where the claim to most is explicitly challenged in the comments. This looks very US centric --BozMo talk 09:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the content of this article is possibly highly US-centric. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Glasgow, Leeds, Peninsula, Leicester and Imperial are all medical schools that make students swear a modified modern oath and/or Geneva declaration (modified hippocratic oath) upon graduation. There may be more UK schools that do this as well Blex areton (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

In Russia, every doctor takes a similar oath at graduation. I suppose it is correct to say that it varies by country, but this section is currently highly US-centric, making it confusing. 49.249.207.45 (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Challenged Portions in need of Neutral POV and Citations

This entire section (excepting point 3) is highly biased and has no citations for how these portions of the oath are challenged nor by whom they have been challenged. Without these it is simply commentary, I suggest either removing it altogether or finding at least one article alleging modern concerns to these points of the Oath.

I'd also like to draw attention to point 7. To keep the good of the patient as the highest priority.

First this is not even a reference to any portion of any version of the Oath, nor does it refer to any text in the article whatsoever. Whereas, this point does appear to challenge the entire purpose behind the Hippocratic Oath, namely to have the welfare of the patient at the forefront of a doctor's (surgeon, physician, specialist, etc.) ethical position towards their art and career of medicine. All of the descriptions specifying the nature of this challenge refer more to political positions rather than a question of ethics - in particular the statement refers to "conserving economic resources,...or simply making money for the physician or [their] employer," as "conflicting 'good purposes,'" again this is dubious (and no citation doesn't help), these matters are of a political nature rather than notable issues for the 'grass-roots' ethics of the practice of medicine.

If a citation cannot be found I will first label point 7 dubious for 48 hours, then remove it.

If it can be found I suggest changing the section of the article to Challenges to the Oath with the challenge of point 7 as the body and have the specific portions as a sub-section.

Salamandre85 (talk) 09:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Introduction is WRONG

It is widely believed to have been written by Hippocrates, ... this is completely wrong. Rather, very few people believe it has been written by Hippocrates.

Aljunied (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually it reads: "It is widely believed to have been written by Hippocrates, often regarded as the father of western medicine, in Ionic Greek (late 5th century BCE),[1] or by one of his students"

Is the latter part also disputed?--Dblk (talk) 18:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The wording could be corrected. "Hippocrates is often regarded as the father of western medicine. The oath is widely believe to have been written by Hippocrates or one of his students." I'll make the edit and let me know what you think. CircularReason (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Misleading introductory sentence

The quote in the main text:-

"It is widely believed to have been written by Hippocrates, often regarded as the father of western medicine, or by one of his students."

is contradicted by what I have just heard on BBC Radio 4's In Our Time episode on The Hippocratic Oath. This is a programme that discusses a topic with invited experts on the subject each week. At 18 minutes and 3 seconds into the podcast Melvyn says that he gets the impression from the papers written by the experts that there is possibility the Hippocratic Oath "might well be tracked back to Hippocrates himself". He is immediately contradicted by one of the experts who says "No, I think we are agreeing on that one" - meaning all the experts agree that it is not a possibility it can be tracked back to Hippocrates himself. If scholars don't believe it can be attributed to Hippocrates himself then it seems misleading to start the article saying it is widely believed to have been written by him (unless by widely believed it is meant that most of the general public believe this).

Here are the links to the page for the programme:-

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/iot/iot_20110915-1201a.mp3 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b014gdqq

More importantly the reference used to justify this sentence in the wikipedia article also says he may not have written it:-

"The famous Hippocratean oath may not be an authentic deliverance of the great master, but is an ancient formula current in his school."

This quote give me the impression he probably didn't write it, which contradicts the first sentence of the article.

If Melvyn is unclear on the issue then its understandable that the writer of the article could be too, so I am just adding this comment to add more information to the debate (I don't claim to have any other knowledge of Hippocrates). Keep up the good work! :-) Steve

89.200.138.33 (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No "Long quote" cleanup required.

The "Oath Text" section of the article currently opens with a cleanup advisory, referencing the LONGQUOTE standard.

The standard does not apply to this section, and the cleanup advisory should be removed.

The text of the Oath is not a "quote," in the sense of previously-published information about the article's subject. The text of the Oath IS the article's subject.

By comparison: The article on the US Declaration of Independence includes the full text of the Declaration. The article on the British anthem, "God Save the Queen," includes the full lyric of the song. The article on Lincoln's Gettysburg Address includes the full text of the speech. Etc.

98.160.133.243 (talk) 23:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If such texts are too long, then they're supposed to be moved to Wikisource. However, I pretty much agree with you... AnonMoos (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I also agree and have removed the advisory. --Marjaliisa (talk) 03:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

HSCI Peer Review

I found that the information added to the page was very helpful, especially to the section the original oath broken down. The information seemed very relevant and crucial to understanding what the hippocratic oath is. naming off all the parts to the oath was an excellent addition to the information. Also, I do like the other section about lethal injection that was added. It provided a good example of restrictions and problems faced with this oath during this time. It was very intriguing to read about this and learn that doctors did not administer the injections.

One thing I see that needs a change is when you stated all the parts of the oath out, maybe try making them more into a bulleted outline or along those lines. This gives more distinction to the parts of it and looks more organized. That way what you are explaining more in detail, shows that it is details and not another part of the oath. I did find that part a little confusing. With the other section, I would try to find a little more about this story and length the section some to make it stronger in the information. Lastly, I think it would be nice to see a little more in the last section about breaking the oath, if possible. Overall though, the page is really well done. K.ebersole (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

ext. link to a recording of the oath

Hello everybody,

in case it is relevant and acceptable, I'd like to add a link (or file) to a recitation of the original text of the Hippocratic Oath, (recited in reconstructed ancient Greek) for the interested and the curious.

I consider the recitation as an "artistic" rendering, because the prosodic rules that determine the pronunciation aren't 100% known, though enough to apply them if one has the time and the obsession to do so...

If you think that the recording can be included as an external link there are some options:

1. a link to the proper page on my website (where one can listen while reading the original + translation a/o watch a video with the same)
2. a link to youtube.com of the same audio + text + translation video
3. a link to Wikimedia Commons (audio, video or both), where I can upload the relevant material.

Of course, in case you decide to include any of the links, someone else has to do it, because I've produced the recordings and own/maintain the website where it's presented...

Here are the links I'm talking about: http://www.podium-arts.com/1697/oath-hippocrates a/o http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5FHZx0oOqs

I'd be grateful for your insights, also for the case I'd like to insert more of this kind of links elsewhere. Any thoughts?

Thanks for your attention :-) Ioannis Stratakis

IoannisS (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Missing discussion

Although executions and abortion are referenced, this article is missing any discussion of physician-assisted suicide and related issues with regards to the Oath. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 15:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I found words already in this article about abortion and re-named them as a new section. Also I added substantiating material from a similar, but separate, source. -SocraticOath (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

that should go to one of the many medical ethics articles. we should keep the article within the scope of the subject. 49.198.45.217 (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

Sources do not substantiate claims

Note 10 (Dorman's article) is supposed to substantiate statistical claims concerning the numbers of medical students swearing some form of the oath in the US and the UK. As far as I can tell, it does not discuss the use of the oath in the UK at all and it does not support the specific statistical claim concerning its use in the US. --131.251.218.4 (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Self-contradictory lede

In the lede it says, "The original oath was written in Ionic Greek, in the late Fifth Century BC." but then two sentences later it says "Scholars widely believe that Hippocrates or one of his students wrote the oath between the 5th and 3rd century BC." I would try to reconcile these, but I do not have access to either source. I suspect the latter should be favored, but the former source is more recent (if I'm correct that the latter is a republished Gifford Lecture). Moreover the very next sentence mentions the former source beginning with "alternatively." Am I correct that these three pieces need to be synthesized further? Kakurokuna (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved

Polite note from Orthopaedics to admins

It must be noted that Hippocrates is considered as father of Orthopaedics Trauma and Orthopaedics itself http://pioa.net/documents/Historyoforthopaedics.pdf . The truth really is the fragment of the Oath on the 3rd-century Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 2547. Responsible editors should ask American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons via email for any doubt. The Oath was indeed written for who will fix broken bone too not who will perform abortion. Except the greek part and its translation nothing is too much relevant to Hippocrates. Keeping the sub-headers Contents, Text of the oath, Earliest surviving copy and link to "Modern version" should work fine as article and it may be locked. Modern version can be made a separate article with their (non-orthopaedics) opinion, criticism, relevance etc. Louis Lasagna may have importance to non-orthopaedics and WMA but not to the history of Orthopaedics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.63.171.206 (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure they have something to say but this claim is dubious and not really worth following up. do you have any more information? the current owner of Oxyrhynchus 2547 describes it as, "A business or official document in a fluent cursive hand, almost entirely illegible." it's publicly available on wikimedia commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Papyrus_Oxyrhynchus_2547 there's just not enough text to get any kind of context for a reliable substantial change of interpretation. we're looking at maybe 10 complete nouns and verbs and no complete phrases in the whole thing. im sure there is sometimes some swordsies going on regarding which speciality is the most doctory of the doctors but you have to remember that ancient scholars were mostly coppiers. they collected whatever texts they could and compiled what was relevant to their studies. Im going to mark this as resolved as your link is dead and you havnt provided any substantial evidence regarding the claims made and it's not consistent with any available research or any available copy of the greek text. furthermore i believe you are more interested in the history of orthopedics so I would direct you to Orthopedic surgery which has a history section or History of trauma and orthopaedics49.198.45.217 (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hippocratic Oath. 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/20150206154153/http://www.wma.net/en/60about/70history/index.html to http://www.wma.net/en/60about/70history/index.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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 07:17, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Dubious abortion translation

Please stop editorializing this translation. The translation is from an academic source, and the source is referenced in the page: https://www.loebclassics.com/view/hippocrates_cos-oath/1923/pb_LCL147.299.xml It is not ethical to edit a referenced source. Find another academic translation and source that if you do not agree with the translation, but do not editorialize.

I previously posted this elsewhere in the talk section but due to the large amount of discussion over the translation of this particular word I am adding this under a new heading to link to the dubious tag I have added.

I will explain the issue for you and give you textual references. The translation is based on an extremely liberal translation of IG II 985/CGRN 191 http://cgrn.ulg.ac.be/file/191/. In the study of ancient languages they reference item reference numbers and the collection to which it belongs. SIG stands for a german collection of Greek Inscriptions or, Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum. The standard practice involved tracing paper and rubbing a pencil over the inscription to make an impression. so these collections were the closest thing they had to taking a photo in the field of words carved into stone. now because of weathering/ reusing materials to build other things these inscriptions get broken up and bits fall off over time. So we dont have the complete text. So they sort of guess the bits that are missing. there are also other issues like its expensive and you run out of space so things end up being written like a telegram. you work around defects and try to fit as many letters as you can into the space you have so the grammar isnt always perfect or complete but it communicates the general message. So that page i linked has the pencil and squeeze copy of the inscription from 500 years ago converted to text. the original is locked away somewhere safe in an archive in Vienna because its a 500 year old carbon copy and the original site is unknown or destroyed. we'll never see it so all we have is the text. So when you look up the concordance in perseus-tufts liddell & scott collection you find, "A drug for producing abortion, SIG985.20 (Philadelphia, i B. C.): pl., IG12 (1).789.12 (Lindos, ii A. D.); cf. φθόριος 1." as the definition and reference. "SIG985.20 (Philadelphia, i B. C.)" refers to SIG 985 line 20 from 1st century BC, Philadelphia in ancient turkey. now here's where it gets interesting. the bits in brackets are the imaginary guessing parts they added to it because it seemed right. you can see it for yourself in that link by pressing the show/hide restorations button. I'll give a brief rough translation derived from a concordance of the available texts.

19...μὴ

no

20φίλτρον, μὴ φθορεῖον, μὴ [ἀτ]οκεῖον, μ[ὴ ἄλλο τι παιδο]-

Philtre(love potions) no (φθορεῖον ????) no contraceptives, n[o anything to do with children]

φόνον μήτε αὐτοὺς ἐπιτελεῖν μήτε [ἑτέρωι συμβου]-

killing no doing these things no doing these things [in groups]

λεύειν μηδὲ συνιστορεῖν, ἀποστερ[οῦντες δὲ μη]-

δὲν εὐνοεῖν τῶι οἴκωι τῶιδε, καὶ ἐὰν τ[ις τούτων τι ποι]-

ῆι ἢ ἐπιβο[υλε]ύῃ, μήτε ἐπιτρέψειν μή[τε παρασιω]-

19 μή

no

20φίλτρον, μὴ φθορεῖον, μὴ οκεῖον, μ

philtre, no φθορεῖον???, no home, no

φόνον

killing

I'll get to the translation of φθορεῖον in a moment, this is the word they interpret as abortion but the greeks already had a word for abortion, ἄμβλωσι. it's the same word across dorian, ionic, attic and koine texts. there are multiple instances of it being used perfectly in this context in the perseus-tufts library. So what has happened is that they dont know what the words were because they were destroyed. so we guess what they meant. then we find this other word, φθορεῖον and say hey well we made up these words over here so this word must mean what we made up too so we'll say that φθορεῖον is related to killing children so it must mean abortion. but the thing is that we actually have multiple examples of a conjugation of this word, φθορεύς in lots of other extant texts which means to seduce or corrupt. so all we can positively derive from this part of the text is that this private cult in lydia wasnt a place to hook-up or commit ritual murders. what a kill-joy.

The reason this is relevant is that this is the same word which is translated in the Hippocratic oath as abortion. So it may as well be translated as no seducing patients ie. diddling while performing gynaecological procedures. although this word is complex because corruption, as a theme in ancient greece was a result of the progress of time, recalling the platonic ideals, things once existed in their perfect, pure form but fall to decay over time. So in this context f'thoreon can also mean wear like a pair of jeans or a virgin on her prima nocta. so it's still not totally clear what is meant although it seems more likely that creative well intentioned fabrications have served as a skandalon in regards to properly translating this text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.36.196.38 (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

81.228.169.227 (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The section I've blockquoted above was added by 2605:E000:1300:86B1:4C52:AD49:75E3:421 (talk) [2] here. I've left it there as evidence to the issue instead of just moving it to its own section. It's pretty bad form to edit someone else's talk post without either signing or in some way signifying that it is a different person, especially when you're arguing with them. I was considering posting a PSA here yesterday about a potential edit war, but I didn't think there was enough reverting to back that up yet. Well, there certainly is now. I'd like to point out that this is an unregistered user making edits to currently highly controversial subjects without consulting the current community discussion. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt in regards to the way they edited the talk page- they're unregistered, could have been a mistake- but regardless, I have a little concern for their quick dismissal of opposition. MapleSyrupRain (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't need to be a registered user to make edits on Wikipedia. These edits aren't controversial at all, I'm restoring the source in its entirety back to the state of the page on May 6th (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hippocratic_Oath&oldid=895785817) before another user 98.114.12.130 (talk) removed those lines from the original translation. What's controversial is you editorializing a source. Either quote the source fully or not at all, but do not edit sources. Stop editorializing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1300:86B1:4C52:AD49:75E3:421 (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You're right in that you do not need to be a registered user to make edits, and I'll give you that they were present in that diff- I'm sorry I missed that. I will however say that you came very close to violating WP:3RR and your communication wasn't exactly civil. Given most vandalism is done by unregistered users, it seemed to be a new addition, and its on a currently controversial subject, I don't think my judgement was entirely unreasonable, given those facts. Regardless, I'll apologize. MapleSyrupRain (talk) 20:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

My communication was direct and factual. You should not be judging situations without fully investigating the facts. You violated WP:AGF when you incorrectly reverted my edits without any evidence of malicious intentions on my part. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1300:86B1:D8B8:AAA3:321D:B6F (talk) 22:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Highlighting the Gods

The intro paragraphs highlight the swearing by different gods as a feature of the oath. This is nothing that needs to be emphasized. All oaths have since their inception been about seeking a covenant to do something before the gods, and this was "the gods'" pragmatic purpose - one of the 3 most often mentioned Delphic maxims about not swearing blood oaths is an example of how far back this goes. The word for oath in Greek XPO or "Chro" is the same as Chronos, the Titan of time.

So the fact the oath invokes the gods is really a feature of the legal conventions of the time and nothing that needs to be emphasized in the article for the mass public. It would be like highlighting in a modern legal text the fact it has "Preamble" and "Whereas" clauses. Historiaantiqua (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)