Talk:Hister

I can't vouch for the part about modern-day Istria and the claim that that region's name is related to a former belief that the areas was watered by the Danube; I just left it in from the previous version of the article. – B.Bryant (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

'Hitler'

Would misklona kindly stop posting a misleading version of this article that leaves out most of the evidence and gives the impression that it refers to Adolf Hitler? Yes, I grant you he has improved the French quotation and translation (sorry, didn't notice that!), and it's intriguing to see a photo of the infant Hitler, but since it has nothing to do either with the river Hister or with Nostradamus's verse, posting it alongside the title is, frankly, a piece of sheer disinformation. The picture belongs in the 'Hitler' article (where it is already), not here. --PL (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop pushing your nonsenical point of view agains hard facts: Hister is a well known name of Adolf Hitler in the Nostradamus work. To deny this is ridicilous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misklona (talk • contribs) 19:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, Hister (as Nostradamus himself explains in his Almanach for 1554 -- have you even bothered to read it?) is a name for the river Danube, as the article explains and demonstrates, and has nothing to do with Hitler. Only the uninformed popular press claims anything else, on the basis of propaganda claims originally made during World War II. Please refer to the reputable sources listed. Not one of them makes this lurid, hoary old suggestion, and most of them specifically refute it. In addition, the original 1555 edition cited (have you bothered to consult this, either?) gives fluves, not fleuves, and camp, not champ, while verse II.20 (have you actually looked at it?) contains no reference to Hister whatever. The translations, admittedly, are discussable, but please stop posting incorrect, unsourced rubbish. --PL (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Nostradamus predicted swastika

Nostradamus not only predicted Hitler, the Antichrist (together with Napoleon), but also precisely described swastika and looting that his "Arian" forces did with their typical barbarity (as it turned out). This is common interpretation that has to be mentioned. Velici (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC).

That would have to be in a separate 'alternative views' section, backed up by reputable sources -- none of which, to my knowledge, agrees with your assertions. To insert them without such academic backup would be 'original research', which is banned by Wikipedia in its articles. --PL (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hitler=Hister

This is a prominent theory, that keeps getting downplayed by a blatant anti-Nostradamus revisionist. Prophecies denial has place in its own section, together with other fringe french "research"Velici (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Then create your own 'prominent theory' section, citing reputable sources to back it up -- and making sure that your textual facts are facts. --PL (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandal PL needs to restrain himself

PL, who only makes edits to Nostradamus related articles, has a clear conflict of interest here. He thinks he owns this article. Also, he puts his unencyclopedic OR and blatant POV into article, making essays in favor of his strong revisionist view. It is only due to obscurity of the topic that this vandal menages to destroy this article for a while, resorting to not only blatant non factual speculation in his "writting", but to personal attacks to all that do not support his agressive posturing in Nostradamus related articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KIKIXmix (talk • contribs) 13:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Original research

This article has apparently been left unattended with multiple unsubstantiated references to Nostradamus's predictions while citing only the quatrains themselves. If that's not original research I don't know what is.

Added the template

Bosredsox24 (talk) 14:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hister. 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/20110717032653/http://www.propheties.it/bibliotheque/1539-1567/1555-002%20Nostradamus,Les%20Propheties,%20Vienne/slides/1555-043.html to http://www.propheties.it/bibliotheque/1539-1567/1555-002%20Nostradamus,Les%20Propheties,%20Vienne/slides/1555-043.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Hitler Was Quite Obsessed With The Danube

There is in even a good reference to this in the article Nazi rule over the Danube River.2601:447:4101:41F9:51D3:BEEF:80DD:52D3 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

That's a nice coatrack you've got there

There's some hardcore coatracking (WP:COAT) going on here. Most of the article has to do with Nostradamus or Hitler, not the nominal subject. Is there ever going to be an article here that doesn't have these issues? What information on here could just as easily go under Danube River? Thunderbunny (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)