Talk:Rod of Asclepius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[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)