Talk:Nostradamus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

New page

As the previous page was around four times longer (!!) than recommended by Wikipedia, please see last save by Theo (would somebody care to archive it?) for previous correspondence on all topics except...

Protected

I protected the page. Please work this out. Revert wars are not productive. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert problems re disambiguation, Tomer (see my note [3] near the top of this page). Can't we get your bit in somehow? --PL 12:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

PL...I've found that most of my "fixing" is done to the "other" version of the article. I really don't understand exactly what's going on with this article...maybe I'll have time to try to figure it out sometime today. From what I'm seeing, it appears that your "opponent(s)" are engaging in massive copyvios, although I'm not sure yet what exactly the copyvios are. (Like I said...hopefully I'll have a clearer picture by sometime later today, after copyediting a much larger article about whose subject matter I know more (and, no offense, but, care more...) ... In the meantime, you might consider opening a request for comments regarding this dispute. Tomer^talk 13:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this, Tomer. Yes, I thought that was probably the state of affairs.

By way of explanation, the 'PL' version is simply an edited version of what I already found there a few weeks ago. This wasn't too bad, but merely needed tightening up and updating a bit in the light of the latest research. There were few complaints about my edit - and only one or two entirely reasonable minor edits. After further edits to meet Theo's main objections, even he admitted that it was 'balanced'. Certainly it is factual in the light of the latest research (see under 'Sources'). However, he persisted in trying to recast the whole thing in an apparent effort to impose his particular point of view on everybody else. In particular, he

(a) added a heavy and quite irrational POV bias in favour of Nostradamus and his astrology, when objectivity is supposed to be the aim (compare the two versions and you'll see what I mean!)

(b) added an account of Nostradamus's childhood directly paraphrased from Leoni's 'Nostradamus and His Prophecies' of 1961/1982, even though the latter's account (pp. 16-17) is entirely unsourced (contrary to Wikipedia policy)

(c) quoted (in Bold!) extensive copyright translations from the same book (pp.121, 123, 125, 127 - check for yourself!) entirely without acknowledgement (again, contrary to Wikipedia policy)

Wikipedia policy – does that include Nostradamus original writings? If not why not? Shouldn’t the skeptics that make money off his work contribute all their proceeds to charities?

Why should they take Nostradamus's hard labor for their benefits? (1) They sure are not promoting what Nostradamus was complaining about, like communism, tyranny and bad leaders... etc.... All I see is the atheists promote anti-religion, anti-God and anti-prophecy. Prophecy mind you is the number one factor in most if not all religions in history - and is loved all over the world in many cultures.

(d) persistently pretended that these were 'Nostradamus's original words', when they were, of course, Leoni's, and

In mid-December I saw little to none Nostradamus words, but other contemporaries who didn’t know Nostradamus well or his work. I saw accusations not proven which defies credibility. Please state your point? Should you have tyranny over the edits? Is this what you are saying? (2)

(e) deleted entirely (significantly, perhaps?) all the references to the original Nostradamus texts under 'Sources', while replacing them with a couple of alleged 'Sources' from the last century - namely Ovason and Leoni again - both of them based on corrupt texts, and neither of them nowadays regarded with much respect by the leading authorities on the subject (see 'Sources')!

I agree that balance needs to be assessed here and some of these sourced cites have bias anti-prophecy, anti-God as their commentaries. Not all but most I saw. (3)

Naturally, my own version isn't perfect, and will always find objectors, but the above really is inadmissible in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia rather than a manifesto. The place for such things is presumably in newsgroups such as alt.prophecies.nostradamus. Hence my reversions, for which apologies, but what can you do under the circumstances? I tried editing, but there really was too much apocryphal rubbish to edit into anything reasonably objective – or legal!

Rubbish is a bias word in itself? Can you not see that everyone in this world doesn’t agree with your views? Do you think that white Europeans are the only people on this earth? Isn’t the internet a world-wide-web and not a limited view of the white European? The apocrypha is celebrated in many cultures all over the world so why the harsh judgment against them? Who are you to judge them? (3a)

Somehow I doubt whether adding a request for comments would help here - though of course you are welcome to do so if you wish. The tags at the top of the article already direct people (twice!) to this discussion board. While, it is true, there are probably plenty of people out there who would rather see the back of Theo and his constant blind reversions, there might also be others who will favour the ideas they express!

Now that is original. Begin to write protect Wiki-Nostradamus. Soon no one will be allowed to edit except the skeptics here with their bias, unproven field, and derogatory banter. Wiki is already taking hits in the media that it is not a good source to use, and soon the teachers will warn their students the same. Having discussion about changes on the talk page is the same as having a government being your jail keeper and you asking permission for release from them.(6)

I would add that 'not caring' about the subject is probably a pretty good qualification for commenting on it! It's the 'caring' that's the whole problem here!

Please put those words to use. They are empty if not acted upon. If you do not care then your presence here denies you. (7)

Good luck with your other edit! --PL 16:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) (slightly edited)

I agree that editing out bad language and character assassinations of Nostradamus is a necessity.

Caring is the problem? I don't think so. Would not make such an absolute statement regarding that with anything. It depends on what one "cares" about. Not caring as a "pretty good qualification for commenting on it?" It is this kind of thinking that really makes a mess of things. Sure glad I CARE enough to NOT drink before driving than NOT caring as a pretty good qualification for seating myself behind the drivers' wheel stoned.

You most likely would like to "see the back of Theo" because he did not fall for the obvious POV in this subject. Also, I never was, and will never will be - your opponent. Clearly, since last month, you were "looking" for a fight, and you found one considering your obvious POV entries and "edits" on the subject of Michel Nostradamus. You've sought to falsely accuse, fight, mis-direct, and have been rude throughout your "discussions" and "edits" on this subject. For several weeks PL, you've constantly added very negative POV material on the subject of Nostradamus while slinging personal insults, yelling in discussion (!) posts; and stating that no prophetic material should be on the subject? Nostradamus? Who wrote an entire book of prophecies? PL, you've constantly rejected primary source material

I’ve seen Nostradamus’s own words in his correspondence contradict the POVs here and I know that is a primary source. Unfourtunatly the editors here seem to know language but not 'a how-to understand' what is being said. Such a pity. (5)

that run counter to your POV; added all kinds of very distant, and POV material into the article that is clearly biased, and hostile, not only to the primary subject, but to the actual history itself. You've steadfastedly avoided positive discussions and/or consensus on the subject; you've entered references clearly biased to Jews high in the subject matter that does not belong; falsely accused others of "plagiarism" and on and on and on.

There is no plagiarism here. Who makes the rules? Countries? Who said they could even attempt to copy and disseminate what Nostradamus wrote in the first place? That makes the skeptics equally liable to plagiarism. Who gave them the right to even make any type of currency from his works? Somebody’s law? Is it not better that they create their own works and not copy and comment on his? I think that is plagiarism at its finest. (5)

So PL, it is no wonder why the Nostradamus Page is protected now.

Tyranny is the root of dissemination of information. As far as I remember a 'PL' has his own website where 100% of his ‘ views’ can be governed by him. Now wiki - Nostradamus is a joke.

I agree with this protection, because I lean heavily toward balanced materials;

Who governs the protection? Once protection is applied by an authority that believes they know what is right and what is wrong then biasness creeps into the system? (6)

You can say that derogatory language not only against Nostradamus was shown here, but Jews, westerners and easterners were extremely apparent in the versions.

I suggest a simpler and neutral write. (8)

including those that come from the primary subject himself, rather than from POV designed to lead the reader astray toward your POV. You know PL - just because you make things up, and then try to state them as fact - does NOT mean that this is so. Your claims of plagiarism are outlandish, and childish - especially considering your "rejection" of ANY source matter on Nostradamus that runs COUNTER to your own POV. This is not what Wikipedia is for, and you should know this. I suggest you actually take the time to review the history of this subject, rather than trying to "prove" something of your own point-of-view, and cease the NPOV insertions into this article. As a scholar of Nostradamus; I clearly believe that you obviously have something to "prove" in your very poor edits, writing, and overall knowledge on this particular subject. I suggest that you do so either in a white paper on the materials, including your claim that Nostradamus did not use astrology - or find another subject you actually know something about before entering your "opinions" as POV into this subject article. Especially regarding astrology Nostradamus obviously used, and wrote on himself. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why you have been so determined to sharply slight the subject. Whatever it may be; you surely have not studied this subject very well at all;

More easier to say that he is not an historian at all, but his field is in language which doesn’t qualify anyone according to academic standards. If language was the perquisite for the historical field, then why have the field at all? (Arialel 22:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)) (9)

and your edits are gounded in some kind of very conventional POV that has a problem with the subject itself. No matter what one "believes" about Nostradamus - let the facts, the biography, and the primary sources speak for themselves. Let the reader believe what they want rather than directing them as your edits attempt to do with POV. Give Nostradamus himself a break, and allow those who want to work together (including me) on this subject do so in positive discussion with knowledge of the primary subject - Nostradamus.Theo 07:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

More comment:

Also, I saw in mid-December 2005 an article that implied Nostradmaus was not a prophet, a seer or a visionary – whatever you may call it. This is not the world consensus. So attacks will come again and again. But the larger picture about predestination, and God were attacked and this is what the articled implied. (10)

A solution is a balanced article with both pro and cons. All I saw in mid-December amounted to cons.(11)

Also, Leave out the personal commentary because it shows a bias.

Also, source your material if by another author. If you do not believe in what that author states, use his source to show why he was wrong. For example, the grouping of all astrologers into an agreement is plausibly incorrect. Now only today do the leading famous astrologers disagree against one another it is plausible that to think in the 16th century the same existed. Today, the famous astrologers attack each other, just as Nostradamus was attacked. But the article implied Nostradamus seemed the only one being attacked in his day, which I do not believe. (12)

Nostradamus states in his correspondence as being a judicial astrologer, but in the December edition on Wiki there was no mentioning of it – and this was the primary source. Whoever controlled the edits in Mid-December either doesn’t know who Nostradamus was or is being dishonest. This is not an attack and this is just a fact. (13)

The sourcing of all weblinks in Mid-December were skilled skeptic sites and also have credibility problems. The solution needs a good balance of pro and con cites – but keep the source cites also. In this solution, the attacks will cease, unless the source of the problem is aggressive ignorance by a skeptic, which will spend its life promoting anti-prophecy, anti-God and anti-religion (Arialel 23:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)). (14)

I agree. When I stumbled onto the Nostradamus article in December, it was obvious that the writer didn't know anything about him - even to the point of denying Nostradamus was a judicial astrologer, or that he even wrote a book of prophecies. PL was the main culprit - playing language games w/ the main subject and filling the entire article from start to finish with very negative POV that went far and beyond skeptical treatment. Indeed, the "sourcing" were really skeptic attacks designed to promote anti-prophecy, anti-God, anti-astrology and anti-Nostradamus. My rewrite was an attempt to get back to balance with primary source materials - including Nostradamus' own words, and sources that knew the man. So, I agree with the protected status to give PL time to chill out from his horrid write-ups on the main subject.Theo 08:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes this seems to be the case about the editor in Dec. PL has a history of very negative POV against Nostradamus and even against other people to the point of calling them names. I support your views that we should get back to a balance and back to Nostradamus’s own words. However, this is PL's attempt to complain and try to shut down this site and leave his very negative POV up. Trust it - this is his plan. You can see the links below of someone posting his posts from Alt.prophecies.nostradamus. Sad individual he is but he controls how people see him, not anyone else. (Arialel 21:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC))

who is saying what?

I just removed scads of blank lines from this ridiculous Talk page, but I still can't figure out who is saying what. If this debate must continue, please keep your comments contiguous, instead of sprinkling them amidst somebody else's comments, and sign them. - DavidWBrooks 16:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC) (the person below, I assume accidentally, removed my signature, so I'm returning it a day after I made this comment)

Thank you, Arialel and David Brooks, for your comments. To answer the various points raised, which I have annotated in your various texts:

1. No, Nostradamus's original texts are not copyright.

Says who? You or a governing body?

Currently, copyright subsists only for 50 (or, more recently, 70) years from the death of the author. This is to protect any income due to him/her or his/her immediate heirs.

man made those laws.

In Nostradamus's day, there was no copyright as such at all - though the unauthorised reprinting of given books was often officially forbidden for a set period (often two years). Thus, copyright currently applies to Leoni, but not to Nostradamus.

• • Copyrights persist, not subsist, but other than that, provided that Leoni's work is less than the stated number of years old (unless the texts are taken from Leoni but quoted from another source in Leoni, in which case that secondary source should be cited), Leoni's work is protected by ©, and cannot be reproduced here.

I do not belive you.

Tomertalk 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Not sure whom you're addressing. So far as I'm aware, the only person who has recently quoted Nostradamus's actual words in the article is me. All the rest have been English translations of them, and copyright ones at that.

• • "copyrighted", but agreed. Tomer^talk 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

3. Please say exactly which ones from the source-list you are talking about. Otherwise there's no possible way of responding to you.

• • ah, the marvel of succinct communication. Tomer^talk 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

3a. 'Apocryphal' means 'spurious' or 'of doubtful authority', and normally applies to material added by non-witnesses long after the event.

Whose definition?

Granted, 'rubbish' is a loaded word,

It is a derogator word.

but what I meant

Try to write the first time what you mean clearly.

was that the material referred to is not backed up by any of the authorities cited, nor by any original contemporary text or archive.

• • "rubbish" is indeed a loaded word,

You just said that - try not to repeat yourself, it is unnecessary.

and in this context is a violation of WP:NPOV...but regarding something as "rubbish" is fine, as long as you don't allow that view to influence how you edit the article.

I do not believe you. This is how I will respond to show disagreement.

Having a POV isn't a violation of WP policy, editing a single POV into an article, on the other hand, is.

Can't say two things at the same time, but you are. What does this mean? All editing is all writing here. It seems one person controls the content now. Who sent the email to have it blocked and who controls the block? Are you going to be honest? I would like to make a history of what is going on right now. If you are dishonest on this page then you are dishonest on the front page. This can easily become standard nostradamus history.

Tomer^talk 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

4. For the same reason as in 3a above, please state exactly which pieces of Nostradamus's extensive correspondence you are talking about, and show how they contradict whatever it is that you are complaining about.

• • and CITE YOUR SOURCES. WP is not a platform for forwarding original research!! (read the definition of "original research" carefully to understand this policy better) Tomer^talk 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

5. Part of the definition of plagiarism is "to reproduce an original piece of work without crediting the source...". This is precisely what I was referring to.

I agree, all sources should be noted. I just asked you and you did not answer who gave you the right to use Nosrtadamus's writings at all? Did you assume you could use his words irregardless of man’s law?

• • I can't comment on this, as I have neither Leoni nor the original Nostradame before me. Tomer^talk 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

6. The write-protection was not of my doing!

Fare enough then who was it? Who sent the email that asked for it?

• • Exactly. It was my doing. After the dozenth time I had to come to this article to disambiguate various languages and change "Hebrew" to "Jewish" and "Catholic" to "Roman Catholic", I got disgusted with what was obviously a revert war, albeit a fairly civil one, thankfully. Consequently, since I'd edited the article, I requested that some other admin examine the situation and lock the article if they agreed with me

OK, So for history's sake your in control of the article by way of collaboration. Therefore, no one can edit what they want because your POV needs to agree. Therefore, this WP is no longer a democratic genre. I believe the next level, albeit still reposeful to civil decorum, you will ask for other’s IP for the banning, because you will tire after attempts of others opinions.

that there was a revert war going on... I made this request of another admin so that I couldn't be accused of having protected an article I was involved in editing, eventhough I'm not actually a party to this dispute. After review, however, if PL's accusations regarding copyright violation are true, then so also (by default) are his allegations of POV-pushing. Neither of these are acceptable. Since I instigated the protection however, eventhough I didn't implement it, I think it's appropriate that I comment here, which is why I'm doing so. See me?  :-p Tomer^talk 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

7. I meant that 'caring' - i.e. having an emotional attachment to any particular view, whether pro or con - is inimical to any objective assessment.

• • Inimical as it may be, one hopes that editors can, through coaxing if nothing else, learn to edit without allowing their "particular views" to interfere.

I still see things that are worse then POVs. There will a be time that I will address them.

This is a very different thing, however, from violating copyrights, which is a violation of US law, and since the WP servers are located in the US, they're subject to US © law. Future reversions of proven copyrighted materials into the article are likely to result in editing blocks and eventually in bans of offending editors. This isn't a "threat", this is WP policy.

All one needs to say is according too... blah,blah,blah... and one doesn't break any US laws.

Tomer^talk 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

8. It is open to you to suggest judicious changes, then - as soon as the protection is removed.

That is a loaded question.

• • No, it is open to "you all" to suggest judicious changes now.

Of course.

That's WHY the article was protected...so that changes can be DISCUSSED and AGREED UPON

They never will be and that fact that you have accusations against Nostradamus without proof makes it more difficult.

rather than idly reverting each other on the article. Talk pages exist for the sole purpose of hashing out differences in opinion about how the article should be written. Notice that the TALK page has not been blocked.

Oh I bet it soon will be. I see an obvious agenda here as I saw Orientalism in the article in December.

Discuss and resolve, and when it is judged that the warring parties have agreed to a happy medium, or to stop pointless fighting at the very least, THEN the article will be unprotected.

Will not happen while you control it.

 Tomertalk 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

9. Nostradamus is a historical subject, as are the times in which he lived. Moreover, he wrote not in modern French, but in 16th-century French - so linguistic and historical skills are needed, and in particular, those of a linguist who has actually studied 16th century French.

This is what I believe. The linguist translates into the modern language and the historian takes over. This is how academia operates in the world. However, here in N-WP we see a linguist who never had training in historical analysis control.

• • 83% agreed.

Based upon what?

Tomertalk 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

10. Wikipedia is not dedicated to reflecting the 'world concensus',

Of course not - just your heritage - your race and no others. You see I do not believe you.

as you put it, but the actual facts as established by a concensus of the the most reputable research.

According to your sources that have no reputable research. First where are the original photographs in their books of the astrology charts that they are addressing. Second, where is you own personal critical analysis. You need to bring the originals up to your work, have them scanned and placed for critical observation – otherwise yours is a POV. Therefore your first source is actually a second source. You need the originals in your view and then reproduce them for your work period. If they do not exists then those are considered conjecture. They need to be scanned.

Nostradamus is a particular case where the 'world concensus' - long since bamboozled by popular authors

So this includes you. You seem to have a wide google search appeal. Please tell me I'm wrong and will investigate this non-claim for history.

with little French and less knowledge of the subject who are determined to promulgate the most lurid myths and Old Wives' Tales - has little or nothing to do with the facts that have been long since established by reputable academic research into the original French texts and archives.

Your POV

The English-speaking world, alas, has been particularly prone to such things for years, thanks to the fact that most of their authors are all but incapable of understanding the original French texts, let alone the more recent French research based on them - though even the French equivalents are not entirely immune from it. As a result, even when told the facts these days, many English-speakers simply refuse to believe them. Nostradamus's own repeated denials that he was a prophet (quoted in the article in translation - though the original French could easily be added if desired) are a case in point.

• • The word is "consensus" ["concensus" is a common mistake, by false analogy with "census"...just so you know]... That said, "world consensus" is far less important here, since this is an encyclopedia project, not a reporting forum, than scholarly consensus. Tomer^talk 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

11. Please try not to confuse (a) the (possibly unwelcome) facts about Nostradamus with (b) criticism of his commentators!

• • Ah yes...the importance of being detached from the subject matter! Tomer^talk 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

12. Generally speaking, the comments are sourced, not least via the 'Sources' section. Re the astrologers, there is, so far as I know, no record of any professional astrologer who supported Nostradamus's approach at the time (as you will gather from his spirited, generalised riposte to them in the last verse of his sixth Century – even if he did plagiarise it from Petrus Crinitus!). Brind'Amour (1) goes into the controversy in great detail in his chapter entitled 'Les controverses'. Lemesurier (2) quotes the various criticisms at length in Appendix F , and especially those of Laurens Videl.

You want to go over everyone, or just sit back and claim what they said was accurate. I have a feeling you will parse and have not the ability to investigate them yourself. I would like for you to disprove me that is - thank you. We have all year there is no rush.

• • Excellent. Tomer^talk 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

13. The current version of the article states specifically that Nostradamus claimed to base his predictions on judicial astrology,

You are not addressing my question. I said If you edited the December version and I implied you know Nostradamus why did you leave his own words out? Is your controlling friend going to start deleting the N-WP history? It is easy to who that you claim to know Nostradamus but fail to use first source material in N-WP.

and explains why the professional astrologers attacked him for it.

No the December version didn't say Nostradamus used JA and this "explains why the professional astrologers attacked him for it." Would you like to say that you do not believe me?

• • As it should. This is perfectly in line with WP:NPOV. Tomer^talk 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

14. Once again, you will need to be more specific. The Guernon site, for example, is far from skeptic - quite the opposite, in fact - and the two fascimile sites simply present exactly that: facsimiles of original editions and documents. If they are skeptic, then so was Nostradamus! The Nostradamus Society of America's Website, though somewhat ill-informed, is very much in favour of the traditional view of Nostradamus. The last two sites on the list both present a whole range of views.

Is two a balance according to you?

Even the other sites, by and large, are factual rather than skeptic. --PL 11:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Factual has no resemblance to original scans, especially of his astrology work.

There are contemporary sources and some about 50 some-odd-years later that contradict your mostly 20th century sources. This is where I want the history to begin. They are close to a first source. You claim they, maybe not all, are incorrect, but I believe this is your opinion because you cannot investigate the claims yourself. You can only use other’s claims. This is why you need to scan the first sorce documents yourself, including the Astrology charts. If they do not exist, then you cannot place in the links the reference to debate over them, in my opinion. If you continue to promote non-first source material then I believe you are forcing your own ill-fated opinion into the bio.

• • Agreed. I see the external links as a well-balanced collection completely worthy of inclusion here.

Who is this - the controller? If not who is and how do we contact them or the lone person?

Tomertalk 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and time, Tom, including the slight strictures on my own comments above, which I naturally accept!

My complaints were, of course, not limited to violation of copyright. For the rest, please refer to my reply to your original piece above. --PL 10:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

PL Have you ever cast an astrology chart yourself. Can you also interpret one? Did you cast all charts from original viewing of the them? Or did you just buy what others said? Recently doing a search at google came up with years of your so-called- not caring about Nostradamus. It seems that your not caring caused you to take a large part of your life in the subject you claim you do not have an emotional attachment too. It seems in Alt.Prophecies.nostradamus you passed on an astrology chart you stated was by Nostradamus, then once it became clear that the handwriting was not Nostradamus you then became flustered. Why is that? Can you even recognize his writing? I feel that you take your sources at their own words and do not investigate them yourself by critical and academic analysis. Can we then test your abilities by taking anonymous times and locals in the 16th century and see if you can read and cast charts. Therefore we can deem your ability as a scholar. Otherwise we feel that you take everyone from your sources for granted. I think this is fare. In fact anyone in academia would ask the same question. I’m in no hurry and I’m going to be recording these debates for history. I know how to accredit sources and quote so no need to be worried about copyright. Of your belief this is not a discussion board to work out the inconsistencies and aberrations of the edits then lets also record your control and dissemination of this whole drama, shall we. I will also record any blocks against me and focus them at the people I was discussing with. Your history of disengagement spans other Internet sites fading as too difficult to encounter. I believe you are a linguist and that is all. You contribution to Nostradamus is as a linguist and not as an historian or an astrologer. You can prove me wrong, but right now this is my opinion by proof as stated above in my arguments, an therefore your control is not productive to the main topic. (Arialel 22:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

For the sake of coherence, I have tried to disentangle the original exchange above from the various hostile interruptions – though readers may wish to go back a few saves to put it back together again properly. If you are responsible for them all, Araliel, would you care in future to put all your thoughts together at the bottom of the piece in question, so that the rest of us can make better sense of them both – as I have usually tried to do recently? As for the original texts that you question, these are freely available from the facsmile sites listed under External Links. --PL 10:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

MY HEAD IS SPINNING from trying to sort through the mess "Araliel" made of the discussion. We're back again to "who's saying what?" Tomer^talk 07:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Can’t help if your stuff is hostile – however, I just posted facts - maybe you should stop writing hostilely toward Nostradamaus, and instead place facts instead of unsubstantiated second sources. As far as a clear and concise writing goes, and following what was said and I commenting on it, this was very clear. You just cannot seem to refute my statements because you cannot. I understand your mission is to ban all naysayer, but this was your complaint at Alt.prophecies.nostradamus. You cannot take people challenging your credibility there or now apparently here. So now one of my predictions came true about you. When ever you have the guts to start Addressing your hostile claims against Nostradamus then is the day you become a man.

To User:TShilo12|Tom, People will not stop attacking a person that refuses to engage in the topic and hoodwinks them by claiming everything in at the links. You believe the claim that Old French cannot be translated into English, which defies every major university in the world. I guess you like to say that they are imbeciles because they translate Old French daily into English. Why do I say this? Because you seem to parrot your masters call. This tells me more about you as a person then anything else. As far as posting between others you do it all the time and I before thought this was appropriate. I just looked at your posting habits - Now I see that one law applies to you but not to others. Sounds like a dictatorship to me. (Arialel 21:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC))

RFC

The following was posted as an RFC on 26 December 2005: "Huge disputes over NPOV, promotion of him as a psychic, including/removal of skeptical views. There are at least three different versions that are repeatedly reverted to by various editors. Need new blood, especially those well-versed in NPOV issues, as all three sides claim their side is NPOV." Could somebody provide links to the competing versions, and/or summarise the issue(s) briefly? The comments above aren't very illuminating, and it's hard for visitors to say anything helpful. Rd232 ^talk 20:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The difficulty for non-specialist visitors is appreciated!

So far as I'm aware, the dispute is/was a two-sided one, rather than a three-sided one. The 'promotion of Nostradamus as a psychic' issue is really part of the skeptical/non-skeptical debate, though the unsourced promotion of him as anything at all (as was regularly practised by one of the sides) is of course contrary to Wikipedia rules anyway.

Briefly, the article as it stands (as edited both by myself and by others) is simply factual, in that it reports the known facts about Nostradamus as established by the recent, reputable Sources cited in the appropriate section at the end, as required by Wikipedia. These sources in turn can be checked by anybody who cares to read and study them, and their individual credentials checked by referring to the others' bibliographical and textual cross-references to them, and/or by contacting the others directly (so far as I know, only the seminal Brind'Amour is dead), and/or by visiting the two academic forums listed at the end of the External Links (mainly to check which papers by them have been accepted or which works commented on) and/or, if necessary, by contacting the Director of the Maison de Nostradamus at Salon-de-Provence, who keeps a careful, independent, watching brief on all research. By and large, the sources listed all agree with each other on the main facts, though there is naturally some small disagreement 'at the edges'. Wilson and Lemesurier, for example, deduce from the somewhat ambiguous evidence that Nostradamus may not have been a qualified doctor, while Brind'Amour and Gruber, on the same evidence, deduce that he probably was (which is why the article reflects both possibilities). Similarly, while Brind'Amour, Gruber, Prévost and Lemesurier all demonstrate that Nostradamus projected events decribed in ancient texts into the future as 'prophecies', the last two have gone into the subject much more deeply, and consequently tend to emphasise this aspect more.

To some, however, these facts seem 'skeptical', in that they demolish much that has been believed about Nostradamus in the past on the basis of the various myths and Old Wives' Tales that have been freely circulated by popular commentators, and especially by recent English-language ones. Naturally, this causes affront and distress to some, since few of us like to have our cherished beliefs and assumptions challenged, however innocently derived. One such was evidently Theo, who represented the other, more traditional side of the argument. His argument was based primarily on Edgar Leoni's splendid Nostradamus and His Prophecies of 1982 (first published by Bell as Nostradamus, Life and Literature in 1961). Unfortunately, quite apart from being some 45 years out of date now, Leoni's book is based on texts drawn from late, corrupt, 19th-century reprints (as he himself admits on his page 115-6 and aficionados can check by comparing them with the actual facsimiles available via External Links), and many of his biographical details (as freely paraphrased without acknowledgement by Theo) are either entirely unsourced, pure hearsay or (as subsequent research has shown) frankly inaccurate. Consequently most of the reputable sources cited above mention Leoni only in tangential biographical references, if at all, these days. Only Randi (op. cit., pp 153-5) devotes some admiring space to him, though he then goes on to deplore his naivete. Such was Theo's reliance on Leoni, indeed, as almost to qualify even these parts of his edits as 'POV', rather than as properly sourced material – even ignoring the fact that he rather spoiled his position anyway by quoting large chunks of Leoni's copyright translations entirely without acknowledgement (flatly contrary, once again, to Wikipedia policy) – since many of Leoni's data simply do not square with the more recent research offered by the cited sources. Theo's insistence on adding what was, in effect, a gratuitous manifesto in favour of judicial astrology (which was already mentioned in the article) didn't help, either.

Response: Again, this is not true. I NEVER quoted "large chunks" of Leoni, nor "plagiarised" him. I entered his book into the sources section, and included quotes from Les Propheties translated into English into the Nostradamus article. PL took exception to this by then "claiming" that Leoni's data does not "square" with recent research. I disagree. Edgar Leoni's work is comprehensive, and at 823 pages, includes all of the primary sources from the 16th Century, 17th Century, 18th Century, 19th Century, and 20th Century. I also disagree with PL's assertions that I rely heavily on Leoni. I do not. I couldn't even get past Leoni with PL, who constantly took a linguist view of Nostradmaus to the point of claiming that Nostradamus was not even an astrologer! As for copyright: when sourcing, any writer knows that as long as the reference is added, that there is NO copyright infringement. PL just does not seem to get it. I've published many times as a journalist, and know how to source. All through December, PL consistently uses all manner of tactics to control the Nostradamus article from a very negative, and error-filled point of view that is far from balanced, or neutral. Moreover, as a professional astrologer, I am quite aware of the astrology Nostradamus used in the 16th Century and the avoidance of this - though named by Nostradamus himself in his own words - were constantly cut from the article by PL - citing "plagiarism" and then calling works by Leoni, or Ovason "ancient" - when they are not. Lenoi's work is by far the most comprehensive material on Nostradamus to date, and David Ovason's work (1997-98) is far from ancient. It seems PL disagrees with anything that goes counter to his narrow view of Nostradamus. I found the Spanish slang for Jews as Pigs repugnant, and not even anywhere near important enough to include in the Nostradamus article - even high up in the introduction. As for Leoni, I think one of the reasons PL tries to stop any reference to him is because Leoni's work includes numerous materials that run counter to the many "contemporary" skeptical Internet sites on Nostradamus that really are cynical comments. Leoni himself, a skeptic, was wise enough to include all he could find on Nostradamus, including wills, testaments, sources from Nostradamus' personal secretary, 16th - 20th Century sources, horoscopes cast by Nostradamus himself, and materials on his childhood, and life. Leoni's work, while not the only book on Nostradamus - is, to this day, at 823 pages the most comprehensive and far, far better than the newer, error-filled version materials on Nostradmaus, particularly on judicial astrology. Every scholar of Nostradamus knows that Leoni's work has many excellent primary sources, while including the entire book Nostradamus wrote, Les Propheties.Theo 09:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It was to all this that I reacted by simply reverting the previous version, since there was simply too much unsourced and POV material to edit objectively. Nevertheless, it needs to be pointed out that the associated 'debunking' (as perceived by the 'believers') is actually of the commentators, rather than of Nostradamus himself (the two are often confused!). Regarding Nostradamus himself, the current article is (as it should be) entirely neutral (i.e. it doesn't say that Nostradamus's Prophecies were either true or false, nor claim that he himself was either a genuine seer or a genuine fake). If anybody can point out anything in it that isn't neutral, I shall of course be more than happy to correct it, or specifically to source it accordingly, once editing becomes available again. (It may be of interest to note that the same dispute is not currently affecting the French or German versions of the article, both of which I have recently edited!) Thus, if either the 'believers' or the 'skeptics' wish to criticise the article, it needs to be on the basis that the 'facts' that it adduces are not justified by the cited sources, and not merely that it offends their preconceptions or contradicts what is popularly believed.Sorry about the length of this, but it's about as brief a summary as I could make it! --PL 11:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Response: PL, from your edits, additions on the Nostradamus subject - it is obvious that you are not versed on this subject - especially on judicial astrology - which is primary to Nostradamus - in his own words. You continue to accuse others of things they have not done (plagiarism, false sources, etc.) that contradicts your POV. Your focus on "believers" and "skeptics" seriously, in my opinion, clouds your own edits on Nostradamus, and it clearly shows in your "edits." You worry a lot about what a reader may, or may not "believe." However, is it possible that you might not have any control over that since "belief" is a personal choice? You actually write from preconceptions - your own, and you worry about things you cannot control - what the reader wants to believe or not believe. It is obvious from your entries on Nostradmaus that you are quite hostile to the subject, and take it personal that any prophetic material is mentioned when Les Propheties is a prophetic book! You will not allow the author to speak for himself, but continued to enter very POV comments in a manner to make a person believe something that is not true. I choose to let the reader choose for themselves. Avoding astrology with such panache as you do clearly sticks out in my view; as well as leaving out any reference to Nostradamus' own words. In fact YOU SPEAK FOR HIM. This is clearly your own point-of-view. I prefer the encyclopedia version as the best way to proceed. Trust the reader. The information on the subject is copious, and should be so. Readers can choose what to believe or what not to believe. Your version does not allow for this, in fact, it detracts from the main subject, and attempts to direct the reader away. You also accuse Nostradmaus of plagiarism! Is there anyone who does not plagiarse in your view?Theo 09:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

You’re so funny in this post PETER LEMESURIER ( [1] ) Where did you get your sense of humor from? Do you have one for 2006?

“Well, just in case anybody here is still interested in the subject of Nostradamus's use of astrology (which I rather doubt -- but there you go!), perhaps I had better finish by just doing a brief analysis of the French texts by Nostradamus that I posted the other day, given that at least one person here is no doubt still unable (or unwilling) to assess them rationally for himself. (Do bear in mind, though, that what Nostradamus, for 'publicity' purposes, said about what he did isn't necessarily the same as what he *actually* did !)”SOURCE: PETER LEMESURIER A link here [2]

"'Although there may appear and exist today people to whom God the Creator may have vouchsafed to reveal through imaginative impressions a few secrets of the future harmonised with judicial astrology...' [Note: this isn't necessarily a reference to Nostradamus himself] SOURCE: PETER LEMESURIER" (A link above )

"It's pretty obvious, then, what the gist of the above is: the quatrains are claimed by Nostradamus to be based on (a) astrology" SOURCE: PETER LEMESURIER" (A link above )

"the Prophecies, as all significant scholars in the field are well aware, virtually duplicate predictions in the Almanachs" SOURCE: PETER LEMESURIER" (A link above ) Really can you line then up side by side for me. So what is that about 960 or so duplicates? You're the coolest.

"As I pointed out earlier (in some detail), Nostradamus based his predictions on the repetition of events in time with set planetary configurations (comparative horoscopy). This produces 'matches' at varying intervals, but one of the most striking is a triple 59-year sub-loop which produced, for example, the TWA 800 disaster 59 years after the Hindenburg disaster at (as I demonstated here) a predictable latitude..

We are currently in one such 59-year sub-loop. So . . . refer back 59 years to 1939, and you should get some kind of reflection this year of what was happening then - and in 1999 of what was happening in 1940." SOURCE: PETER LEMESURIER B link above [3]

Did Nostradamus use the 59-year sub-loop Peter? Which ones?

Here is something cool. Nostradamamus Letter 30

"Accept this prediction, if you find any credibility in my knowledge of judicial astrology" - Nostradamamus from Letter 30 From Nostradamus to Hans RosenbergerBold text. Source at Link [4]

"I have been practising medicine and judicial astrology for nearly forty years nowItalic text" Nostradamamus from Letter 30 From Nostradamus to Hans RosenbergerBold text. Source at Link [5]

Peter what is the difference between Astrology and Judicial Astrology and how does it apply to people that attacked him. Can you explain what degrees are used and how the minuets are important to judicial astrology? I do not understand? Please let Peter explain as he is the expert here. I do not listen to anyone else here. They are not experts like Peter.

To Theo. Everyone was plagiarizing back then, so it is kind of pretensions to say he was - don't say it then. Shame on you. (66.214.178.175 06:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for that; it all sounds reasonable, and I think we need to hear the other side if we're going to make progress with why there is a dispute. (Otherwise, your version looks a good basis on which to proceed.)

Let's see what the 'other side' says, then! ;) --PL 16:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Response: That is the problem. You continue to fight over this subject as if it is some kind of war. The encyclopedic version is much better, and allows the reader as much information on Nostradamus as possible. Let me ask you then: what is your knowledge of judicial astrology? It is very important in reading Nostradamus, as you must know if you read him.Theo 09:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

However, I like the structure of the German version much better, in its clearer separation of Life and Work (also the first three paragraphs of the section "Die Prophezeiungen" don't seem to be quite there in the English version, and are useful.)

I merely worked on what was there already. I could have a go at enlarging it. What do you think, folks?--PL 16:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and we don't want a Skepticism section, as this implies that the article is written from the Gullible Point of View. :-O (The article as a whole should be neutral, and any material that might go in such a section be incorporated appropriately elsewhere.)

Response: I disagree. I think a Skeptical section is needed as it would reduce the obvious negative POV on the main subject.Theo 09:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly it's merely the title that is wrong. That also was there already. Didn't want to tread on anybody's toes! How about 'Critiques'? Or omit entirely? --PL 16:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Try and do without it, I think. It should be possible to incorporate that material elsewhere in the article. Rd232 ^talk 16:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally, maybe "Legacy" would be a useful unifying theme/heading for material other than Life and Work (i.e. popular culture, hoaxes, continuing popularity/influence etc). Rd232 ^talk 15:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds a good over-all title to me: turn the rest into sub-titles? --PL 16:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That was my thinking; have a look too at the changes I just made to the German article. Rd232 ^talk 16:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks sensible enough to me. Let's see if they'll wear it! How about having a similar go at the English one yourself – once it's de-protected, that is? --PL 16:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Separate sections for skeptycal and believers are needed

I don't remember a book about Nostradamus that could be considered neutral: Auclair, Bareste, Beltikhine, Bockin, Boscolo, De-Fontbrune, Frontenac, Ionescu, Lemesurier, Leoni, Patrian, Ramotti, Randi, Roberts, Ruzo... each one of this persons wrote a very different book, departing more or less from the same quatrains. -The french Auclair (~1960) wrote of Nostradamus as a Catholic Prophet. -Bareste discovered the method of the "linking names or words" -The russian Beltikhine (~1950) wrote that Nostradamus put a lot of quatrains about his past times, as those related to the destruction of the city of Tharso, or the one about the capture of Heredde. -The german Bockin underlined Nostradamus as very anti-catholic. -The italian Boscolo discovered several "secret" quatrains in Venice's Marciana Library, used a "spiral-reading-method" and then make a computerized "great salad of languages" in order to explain Nostradamus, and everytime he saw the word "long" he though of the chinese dragon! -The french De-Fontbrune used philology, made a lot of mistakes in the 80's but his father made a good job in predicting II W.W. -The french navy captain Frontenac (1955) made an interesting study, since he used military decoding proceedings (Vigenère table) and proposed a cronology that crashed badly... but suggested that the method of Kabbalah should be employed (And that the quatrains will never be understood in a scientific way, but there will be always a door opened to skepticism, since they require faith to be accepted). -Hewitt and Lorie wrote maybe the worst book in nostradamians history, relying massively on extensive anagrams and change of letters. -The romenian Vlaicu Ionescu used the Rudolf Steiner's methods of relaxation and trance, and managed to predict (in a book of the 70's) the falling of comunism in Russia for May 1991 (based upon q.I.16). -Leoni (based on Le Pelletier), wrote an useful glossary, dictionary. -The american James Randi, made sometimes very smart observations, but he carefully avoided even to mention the clear hit made by Ionescu. -The italian C.Patrian, made an excellent review of several authors. -My professor O. Cesare Ramotti (italian) found and interesting kabbalistic method, and deciphered the drawings about the Popes in Nostradamus Vaticinia. But then he put too much New Age sauce. -Roberts made an interesting work with the "liturgical date" 325 A.D. -The peruvian Javier Ruzo found a direct link with the structure of Nostradamus' testament and the structure of quatrains. (please dont'cut and rend unclear the structure of my message)

'(omissis)'

--87.3.229.114 19:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC) GR.

Thanks for your survey, which is very much to the point. But most of the above are of course partisan regarding interpretations of Nostradamus, rather than about the facts concerning Nostradamus, which are what the article is (or should be) about. (My late friend Ionescu, incidentally, did indeed predict the downfall of the Soviet Union on the basis of the Letter to Henri II, but unfortunately he also said that it would be because of war!) Meanwhile, how about Lemesurier, who is the only one you mentioned who is in the Source list, to say nothing of the rest of them? You seem not to have commented on him. Neither he nor the rest, by and large, offer partisan interpretations at all... --PL 09:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Word for word

I love to know who said the translations on two of the sites are 'crude word for word'. Last time I checked.. is there any other way to translate a document if you didn't know it's true intention? -- Roger Wehbe 151.197.230.139 18:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes – the old chestnut!

Unfortunately French words don't mean English words, as any French person will tell you! No publisher, consequently, would even think of publishing a word-for-word translation of Rabelais or Molière, for example – so why would they of Nostradamus? The original French 1697 version of 'Little Red Riding Hood' by Charles Perrault, for example, means exactly the same to every French kid as it does to every English kid. It starts: Il était une fois une petite fille de village, la plus jolie qu’on eût su voir: sa mère en était folle, et sa mère-grand plus folle encore. Cette bonne femme lui fit faire un petit chaperon rouge qui lui seyait si bien, que partout on l’appelait le Petit Chaperon rouge.

So let's try a word-for-word-translation of it, shall we? Let's see...

"'He was one time a small girl of village, the more pretty which one had known to see: his/her mother of him/her/it was insane, and her mother-large more insane still. This good woman to him/her/it made make a Little Riding Hood Red which to him/her/it suited so well, that everywhere one him/her/it called the Little Riding Hood Red."

So there you are. Literal, word-for-word translation can obviously be relied on absolutely to give a true, faithful and representative version of an original French text – such as Nostradamus's, for example.

Er ... can't it?

Read it to your kids. They'll be delighted!

Er... won't they? ;)

Want me to go on? If you like, I'll put a word-for-word version of the whole story on my User Page for you. Various teachers have even asked permission to reprint it as a dreadful warning to their pupils. Just say the word! --PL

Again, PL, there is NOTHING that says that Nostradamus cannot be read because of the 16th century French he used. Even French readers of Nostradamus cannot understand what he is saying due to his use of the Green Language of judicial astrology - which, in order to read, one has to practice judicial astrology. I doubt that you have understood his quatrains considering your lack of astrological knowledge concerning Nostradmaus.

Plague disambiguation

Don't know how long this will be blocked, but someone who might be interested and able to could change the links to "Plague" to an appropriate unambiguous page - and probably delink some of the occurances. Might want to link the thing that is looming outside as Black Death and the thing he is treating as Bubonic Plague. John (Jwy) 04:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

So far as I'm aware, the 16th century Plague wasn't usually referred to as the Black Death, which was a term used rather earlier in European history. Some delinking seems sensible, though. As for whether it was bubonic or not, medical opinion is divided on this. You may care to access Nostradamus's own description of it in his cookbook, the Traité des fardemens..., hopefully via the second facsimile site listed under External Links (try putting the title in the Search box). Otherwise it is available via the online Bibliothèque Nostradamus, but unfortunately this is a protected site.

You are, of course, free to edit accordingly once the page is released for it. --PL

I am only "passing through" with this and my interest in the specific topic is of curosity but not enough to dive into the details for these purposes. My criteria for disambiguating the plague to Black Death or Bubonic plague is based on what is on those pages - and here they define Black Death as from 14th century and "it" continuing in a series of epidemics until the early 18th century. Your update is making me re-examine the antecedent of "it" in that article and wondering if I have it right. The good news is I have not been changing the word "plague" in the articles, only the link to the underlying article. And the article provides information about that entire span of time. John (Jwy) 16:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for that. None of the French references at the time used the phrase 'Black Death', and Nostradamus himself merely refers to la peste ('the Plague') [Traité, 1557 Plantin edition, folios 9-11]. --PL 17:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Getting Back to a balanced Nostradamus Article

This is exactly what I hope will be done in light of the rampant negative POV on the primary subject. I prefer a balanced encyclopedic article and to trust the reader to obtain as much information as possible.Theo 10:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest that all concerned have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial if they haven't done so recently? (OK, I can, and I have. :) ) Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words may also be relevant: statements like (in Theo's version) "Many people say" and "Michel was said to have" should be avoided. Rd232 ^talk 14:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous discussion page I've ever seen. It's like children. --207.47.142.15 00:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

My attempt to rewrite what I consider to be one of the worst articles on the main subject of Nostradamus just started last month. Suggest that in order to achieve the "perfection" that some seem to want to reach right away in first write-ups - is that the process continue without the sudden onslaught of POV whiplashing of those who would immediately scan the article with a microscope before a general outline of the primary subject is completed. This would do wonders for the article. Theo 02:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed section (added by anonymous user) "But please put some quatrains in our (feared) future. [H5N1]" (Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball). This page is for discussing the Wikipedia article Nostradamus. Thank you. Rd232 ^talk 19:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia subject: Nostradamus & On Sources: Leoni & Ovason

Please excuse the length of this. I am writing it without breaks by request of Wiki administrators. It is not meant to be a ramble, but to allow no breaks so a record can be kept: In the hope of having a balanced Wikipedia article on Nostradamus I would like to challenge Peter Lemesurier's claim that sources such as Edgar Leoni and David Ovason are not good enough to be used in the Wikipedia topic on this subject. I consider Peter's claim of "plagiarism" ludicrious, and assert that this allegation is used as a distraction from his POV on the Wikipedia Nostradamus article. He should look up the word in a dictionary. As a journalist, I surely know what the word means, and have never in my life plagiarised ANYONE. Plagiarism means to take an author's work and then claim it as your own - meaning, putting your own name over it. This was never done with Leoni, or anyone else. What was used was Nostradamus' own words from Les Propheties - cited with quotation marks as his own writing. This is NOT plagiarism. I suggest Peter Lemesurier look the word up for its meaning before he goes around slinging such mud. Lenoni's book was also cited as a source in the section. How is that plagiarism? If one wanted to actually plagiarise, they surely would not place the name of the true author in the works after stealing it themselves and putting their own name on it! Where was this done? Theo 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, to the main subject: I consider Peter Lemesurier's (PL) work on Nostradamus to be narrowly defined point-of-view, and overly critical & cynical of the subject himself. It avoids dealing directly with the primary subject - and admitting primary sources into the Wiki-subject. He tries to accomplish this by deverting attention away from information that is counter to his POV and goes further by slighting the subject himself and denying many primary sources on the subject that does not fit into his own point-of-view. Moreover, his edits on Wikipedia-Nostradamus are filled with cynical POV that seem to be common in Lemesurier's prior works. In his own website, he consistantly inserts his own comments into Nostradamus' own prose such as that found in the Preface to Les Propheties, today called "Cesar's Letter" numerous times, breaking up the prose with many cynical entries. Though, Lemesurier has the full right to do whatever he wants on his own website, he carries his cynical point-of-view to his edits on the Wiki-Nostradamus subject. This, I do not agree with. As a Nostradamus scholar and judicial astrologer, I am versed on this subject and was not pleased at all with what appeared to be some very slighted write-ups on Nostradamus. I communicated this to him in the hope of achieving an encyclopedic version that is balanced and as neutral as we could get the Wiki article. But PL's determination to continue an attack on this subject did not abate until the Wiki page was protected. I think this protection is wise because it gives time to administrators, writers, and editors to hopefully return the Nostradamus article to Wikipedia NPOV standards as best as possible. I agree that a cooling period is needed and was glad to see the protected page. Now, in the hope that this happens, I am responding to Peter Lemesurier's Talk Page, where claims the sources of Edgar Leoni & David Ovason are not good enough to be used. I challenge PL's claim here: First, Leoni's book, "Nostradamus and His Prophecies" first published in 1961, with a new edition (1982 Bell Publishing Company, New York) is by far the most comprehensive work on Nostradamus in English. At 823 total pages, it contains: All the prohecies of Nostradamus in French & English, including prose; has complete notes and indexes; contains a critical biography of Nostradamus; his Will & Personal Letters; contains a Bibliography of Nostradamus & commentators from the 16th,17th,18th,19th & 20th centuries; contains historical geographical, genealogical backgrounds; and has reviews of theories concerning Nostradamus, his methods and many other supplemental materials. This is much more than Peter Lemesurier has ever provided himself in his own prior works on Nostradamus. I have read Lemesurier's books on my own research of Nostradamus and I have to say that his Pl's knowledge of judicial astrology - even astrology in general - fails him toward his knowledge of Michel Nostradamus, his prose, and his quatrains. Moreover, judicial astrologers use a language called the Green Language, a kind of astrological-alchemical slang, that was also used as an algorithm to cover important messages. This was common in western Europe, where nations desired to have their mail coded to protect secrets. These codes were developed by astrologers who worked for rulers of nations and governments. A similar kind of code was used by the judicial astrologer William Lily in his work for English crown. Later, these codes were further developed in the 20th century, and the Germans used (Enigma) a kind of Green Language that the British broke, and read during World War II. Lemesurier claims that some commentors are not sure about the Green Language. This is understandable, since many commentators on Nostradamus are not versed in astrology. Remember, Nostradamus' quatrains are astrologically-dated, or coded, and protected against misuse, according to Nostradamus' own words in Les Propheties. This has been the main frustration with many Nostradamus commentators - that because they did not study, or practice astrology, that Nostradamus' quatrains make no sense. This was done on purpose by Nostradamus. He says so himself in his book. Nostradamus knew that in order to read his quatrains and to understand them, that the reader must practice judicial astrology, and this is not easy. Judicial astrology is very difficult and takes decades to even begin to practice. In astrology, there were two streams: Natural Astrology and Judicial Astrology. Each does merge on some branches, but what made them different was that the Vatican codified Natural Astrology, making it dangerous to practice, but did not do so with Judicial Astrology, which many in the Roman Catholic Church practiced - including some popes, who either practiced it themselves, or hired their own judicial astrologers. Judicial astrology had deep theological roots, and many European nations had judicial astrologers working for royalty, the wealthy and the Vatican itself. The messages communicated between the Vatican itself that it wanted kept secret were coded in the Green Language of judicial astrology. Nostradamus himself pointed out that he used judicial astrology to date each quatrain, and clouded them on purpose to protect most of the future information he had about world events. Past and present Nostradamus commentators who have not studied astrology in general, and judicial astrology in particular, express frustration at what are very tight prophecies, hard to read, and intepret. This is the same as not being able to read a horoscope - one has to learn astrology in order to read one. With Nostradamus' prophecies, this is doubly true: since, as a judicial astrologer, he knew, that only the most serious-minded individuals would be able to break his code, and read the quatrains, since judicial astrology takes an average of 20-30 years to master. Now, Peter Lemesurier's own commentary & works clearly shows his own frustration with Nostradamus. I have found this common with non-astrological commentators on the man. When reading the works of commentators who do not possess astrological knowledge: I often find many errors of intepretation, dating of astrological configurations, and that of epicycles special to judicial astrology. Most commentators who have some astrological knowledge also make the same mistakes due to not practicing judicial astrology. I will give an example here: Nostradamus, being a medical doctor, was also a consulting astrologer with clients. He used an astrolabe. He often did not have to know the birthtime of individuals since in judicial astrology only the birthday and place of birth is required. This is because judicial astrologers use a technique for sunrise in casting horoscopes. The sunrise chart shows the basic characterics of the day. These charts can also be set for key moments - spring equinox, summer solstice, ingress charts, lunar charts, etc. Many natural astrologers get stuck on this since they believe they require an exact time of birth. Judicial astrologers are trained otherwise, and use not only sunrise, but the fixed stars. Nostradamus, even with a time of birth for a client - would have cast two charts - a primary judicial sunrise chart for the day of birth, and a natal chart with the given time of birth. He would have set the Fate (The Sun) exactly on the Ascendant (horoscopus) at sunrise, and then read any planets, and stars rising, culminating, or setting, according to judicial astrological principles. This is because of history and the practice of the Magis, Persians, Hebrews, Arabs, etc., who practiced judicial astrology not only for rulers, but as consulting astrologers for the general populace. It is not easy for non-astrological commentators to understand Nostradamus because the man was a judicial astrologer. Nostradamus' prose, and quatrains are set in stone in the language of judicial astrology. Now, PL's Wiki-Nostradamus article slights the main subject above and beyond what is required for encyclopedic information, and attempts to divert the reader away from the main subject by making POV claims that are in error, and avoids astrology, I think, because Lemesurier has a problem understanding judicial astrology. PL would make a fine Nostradamus scholar, in my opinion, if he took the time to study & practice judicial astrology and laid off the cynical attitude on Nostradmaus born out of frustration on how it could be possible to forecast the future using judicial astrology. Many Nostradamus commentators fall into this trap of trying to "read" and "understand" Nostradamus and his quatrains. I can see why he desires not to have "sources" cited that counter Lemesurier's own personal view of Nostradamus, and his claim, that Nostradamus did not understand astrology, is not true. Lenoi's work seems to be a challenge to PL because, as a critical work, it is comprehensive, and allows the author of Les Propheties - Nostradamus - to speak for himself. The "claim" that Leoni's book is "out of date" as PL claims is not valid. If this claim were true, then, by dating a book written in 1961 and updated in 1982 "ancient", as PL does, that would mean that Nostradamus' own book, written in the 16th century - is also out of date. Second, David Ovason's book (1997) is far from "ancient" and is titled, "The Nostradamus Code" and is easily a book that can be cited as a source.Theo 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere in this long rambling discourse have you come close to addressing PL's stated concern, which is, to clarify, at least as I understand it, not that Leoni is being used, but that Leoni is being plagiarized. Tomer^talk 11:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read it. I think he addressed it quite well.Theo 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

To Theo: a discourse on the importance of judicial astrology to understanding Nostradamus isn't really helpful in resolving this debate. Please also see Wikipedia:no original research - you should be able to cite reputable souces who make these arguments, otherwise we can't include these views in the article. To both parties: Please address separate issues under separate subheadings (eg plagiarism, quality of sources, whether to have a separate Skeptical section), otherwise we will continue to go round in slow, rambling circles. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 14:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Theo, sorry, but I don't see the plagiarism issue even mentioned, much less "addressed ... quite well"... Tomer^talk 14:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of splitting Theo's long comment above into two comments, so that his plagiarism remarks are now the first comment in the section. (I think Theo misunderstood the request not to break up comments: this applies other people's comments, not your own. Breaking up your own, especially by topic, is helpful.) Rd232 ^talk 15:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well Tomer, first, as an editor, I suggest you find it first. That would be easiest to do. Since it is being claimed, then find it. Then it can be addressed. Let's see if it is there. Plagiarism has a clear, definite meaning - clear. I felt I'd addressed it well enough, but, if this does not meet your standards, then find my name on something that another author wrote that I took, then claimed to be my own. That should be a simple feat to accomplish if it is true.Theo 14:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

To begin at the beginning: where is Peter's claim of "plagiarism"? I can't find it. Rd232 ^talk 15:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The article history is full of them, as are previous sections of this talk page. For a random diff pulled from the article's history, please see this. Tomer^talk 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've done "find in page" with "plagiarism" on this talk page and I'm none the wiser. The diff you give above leads me only to this sentence: "Meanwhile, if Nostradamus's many competitors – and he had many – never accused him of copying from it, it was because copying and/or paraphrasing, far from being regarded (as it is today) as mere plagiarism, was regarded at the time as what all good, educated people should do anyway.". Still none the wiser. Rd232 ^talk 17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, readers having a hard time deciphering all the above can find on my User Page not only a detailed critique of Leoni and Ovason (in case they are unfamiliar with these two writers), but a spoof glossary which they may find amusing, even if not actually helpful. ;) --PL 16:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen that, and that's helpful in the context of that discussion. But what about this plagiarism business? Rd232 ^talk 17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The extensive extracts from Nostradamus's 'Preface to Cesar' quoted in bold print in Theo's oft-reverted article are taken word-for word, and without specific acknowledgement, from Leoni's 'Nostradamus and His Prophecies' pp.121, 123, 125 and 127 (hopefully somebody here with a copy can confirm?) and the article in which they appear is signed 'Theo', thus claiming his own authorship of them (plagiarism?). True, he might claim (as he does) that, far from being Leoni's words, they are 'Nostradamus's words' – but then Nostradamus actually wrote in 16th century French, so the claim, clearly, is factually untrue. He thus violates not only Wikipedia's rules, but Leoni's still-existing copyright and Bell's publication rights – to say nothing of literary common sense. --PL 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I think I see now (looking at Theo's version). So what's the big deal? The source for the English translation (Leoni's, yes?) of Nostradamus' original French needs to be clearly given. End of problem as regards attribution. Rd232 ^talk 19:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

We also need fewer quotes and a revised text that conforms to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I would start with PL's version and add back parts of Theo's as necessary. Theo's version in places reads like an essay; "Judicial Astrology..." section in particular is rather polemic. Again, everyone please be aware of Wikipedia:Verifiability. (Example: Please cite sources as to the relevance/meaning of judicial astrology to Nostradamus' work.) Oh, and relatively trivial as it is: please don't bold quotes in the article. Italics is quite enough. Rd232 ^talk 19:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, Nostradamus himself mentions judicial astrology more than once, and it is important to the primary subject - polemic or not. It is encyclopedic information about the main subject, and helps the reader in researching the subject. As for my "essay" - well, I just started on this topic a month ago, and it was cut short from the very start; so, the lack of time, the hostile TalkPage, the instant reverts, etc., led to this. Even getting to citing sources was a major headache... so, it was just a start, and not even close to a positive one considering the negative POV on the subject itself. As for "bold" quotes, yes, agreed. Italics is quite enough, you are correct. Thanks.Theo 04:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Er, no, Rd232, it's not end of problem. It's not just the fact that all those quotes are way over the top for a general encyclopedia article (as you yourself hint). The only thing freely permitted under US copyright law, as also under UK copyright law (if in different wording), is 'fair use'. This normally means:

(a) No more than 200 words

(b) for purposes of criticism and review only, and

(c) crediting author, title and publisher on each occasion.

In view of this, Wikipedia might be well advised not merely to take steps to prevent all likely future repetitions, but to remove all Theo's previous reverts from its 'History', too, since it continues to risk prosecution by the publishers all the while they remain on its public access files.

Meanwhile, as you say, there's also the whole question of his continual attempts to 'sell' a largely unsourced manifesto for a particular version of astrology that is objectively of fairly marginal relevance to Nostradamus's actual practice (see the note on my User Page re Ovason) – and with which, incidentally, he is also currently battering the astrology page by means of his usual blind reverts, with similarly devastating results (not least because most of its devotees clearly disagree with him, so suggesting that his ideas are more opinion than fact).

And that's without even going into his continual posting of biographical details about Nostradamus which even Leoni (from whom he directly paraphrases them) indicates on his pages 16-17, by means of phrases such as 'it is said that', are no more than unsourced hearsay...

As for my posting one phrase in bold print, this was, of course, merely to indicate the sort of print in which the plagiarised quotes appear and could thus be found, in case there was any doubt – just as you did! --PL 09:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to the article. You're welcome to use bold for emphasis etc on the Talk page! Rd232 ^talk 13:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

On the "fair use" issue: if we limit any quotes to what the article actually needs (i.e. not very much), and properly attribute the source when and where the quote is used, I'm sure it's fine. The trouble is there are several issues overlapping: if Theo was citing Leoni to show a point Leoni is making, that would be fine; but he's citing Leoni to make his own point. The latter doesn't work in terms of Wikipedia policy (W:NOR), and may also raise the fair use issues you suggest. Either way, it should be fixable by starting from your version and only adding back Theo's material in a way that cites Leoni's argument, rather than merely using his translation. Rd232 ^talk 13:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

As to the history/copyright issue, see Wikipedia:Copyright violations on history pages. The gist is that policy is to leave potential copyvios in the history, and remove them if the copyright holder complains. Rd232 ^talk 13:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, but Theo should be under no illusions. Personal astrological manifestos are OUT! So are dodgy pseudo-biographies based on hearsay. Moreover, if he adds in materials that run counter to the views of most or all the recent major sources cited, or attempts to rubbish materials that all or most of them confirm, merely on the grounds that 'Leoni and/or Ovason says it', then it would need to be accompanied by a qualification indicating that no other recent authority agrees and that Leoni is only quoting hearsay, or that Ovason is basing his view on late and corrupt texts, or that either or both are relying on evidence that has since been disproved – which would then raise the question of whether it was really worth citing them in the first place. If he attempts to add either or both to the Sources section, similarly, he must expect opposition, since the current text is in no way based on either, and they would qualify only if some of the material based on them managed to 'stand' in the light of modern evidence and Wikipedia rules.

Response: I see this statement much more grist for your grind, Mr. Lemesurier, considering your lack of astrological knowledge to be able to determine what is a "personal astrological manifesto" and what is not. Your statement of adding sources that are "dodgy pseudo-biographies" is your POV. I consider your "edits" to be highly POV, and in error, based on the many sources that exist on this subject over the past 450 years. I also see your additions to the Talk Page from the start as hostile, heated, and accusatory (plagiarism, "corrupt" sources, etc.) as a continuation of your own bias. One only has to read your own prior writings on Nostradamus to easily come to this view. Lastly, you continue to generalize on every other author who does not share your POV. And, presume that you are the only Nostradamus scholar qualified to edit, comment, or write on this subject. I disagree. You always go OUT of your way to look for "opposition" and this is the cause of your immediate hostility. I remind you that you are not the only scholar on Nostradamus, and suggest you give leeway to others - not only Leoni, Ovason - whose work on this subject are well-researched, well-written, and sourced enough to be cited on the Wiki-Nostradamus page.Theo 16:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I suspect that he would find all that difficult, I would propose that Theo first float any proposed changes for discussion here before he inserts them, and attempt to edit only one section at a time, if at all, to avoid the necessity of reverting the whole article. In the light of his current revert war on astrology, though, I have to say that I'm not optimistic! :(

Again, another assumption. Listen, you do not know me PL, and suggest you cease with the immediate accusations as this does not lead to a positive atmosphere. I am new here, and didn't know what a "revert war" was before actually running into you. I find your constant accusations immature for a man of your age, and perhaps your lack of "optimism" is a major cause of your own troubles.Theo 16:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As for copyvios, if that is Wikipedia's policy, on Wikipedia's head be it! ;)

This line proves how POV your views are. Trust the reader. This is something you surely do not do.Theo 16:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

For my own part, I would propose to add specific sources for quite a few more of the existing statements, and to add the actual publishers of the Sources cited, as would be normal. I'm a bit worried by the Further Reading section, though, as it's open to people to include all sorts of dubious pot-boilers, but we'll see what happens... I would hope that you, Rd232, for your part, would undertake the general re-heading that I believe you were proposing, and insert the material you thought would help from the German version of the article.

Again, your involvement in this subject is nit-picking to the point of extreme irritation. This is why the Nostradamus article is a mess in the first place. I believe after reading the English version of the Nostradamus article that the German version should also be reviewed in light of your history with this subject.Theo 16:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile this discussion page is way over the limit. Time to delete and start again, folks? Does anybody think the above is worth archiving? (Personally I doubt it, but still...) --PL 17:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The page is a history, and helps me to review what has been written. I would like to keep it.Theo 16:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Never delete a Talk page. Leave everything in, even if you don't like it, unless it's blatantly illegal or incredibly offensive. No picking and choosing - just save everything; it can be archived again soon. - DavidWBrooks 18:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Too much negative facts of the PL. Now he requests to delete it. Ahhh.. Prediction comes true. Go Ahead it is saved and will come back to haunt you(Arialel 22:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC))

I hardly think "delete" was meant maliciously. Deleted material is still accessible via the history (and in fact for practical reasons some Wikipedia pages are archived in this way). But there's no need to decided what's "worth archiving"; just bung it in an archive when the time is right. (Not yet.) Rd232 ^talk 23:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You can't tell from an article history what was deleted, or even if anything was deleted ... you can hardly expect people to hunt through dozens of listings in a history to see whether anything was taken out. Once something is deleted it is, for all practical purposes, inaccessible, unless you already now it existed and are looking for it. - DavidWBrooks 01:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with David. It is a run and hide tactic for the controllers. What is needed is a website with a search device. (Arialel 01:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Yes, deleting makes material substantially less accessible (not inaccessible). (Assuming the whole page is blanked, not selective portions thereof - that would be much less accessible.) If you post a link to the old pre-deletion version, it's not that different from archiving: the key difference being it doesn't show up in search. Anyway, it's moot, we archive this page as normal. Rd232 ^talk 09:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps somebody would care to do that soon, then, as this one is already up to 88K! David? --PL 11:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Further to the above suggestions re editing the article, I propose (as I said) that each section be discussed and agreed on in turn (starting from the top) before Theo edits it – or we shall merely get into the familiar revert wars that are currently wrecking the astrology article. Moreover, I would suggest that the article continue to be protected until changes to at least the first two sections have been agreed. When protection is removed, I would propose that either Rd232 or I clearly mark the article 'BASIC ARTICLE' in the History for ease of back-reference, and thereafter 'LATEST AGREED VERSION (see Discussion)' each time a new, agreed section is edited. --PL 11:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The page was a mess BEFORE I joined Wikipedia Mr. Lemesurier. I suggest you cease blaming me for conducting edits that run counter to your personal POV. Moreover, my expertise is on astrology and since yours is NOT - would suggest that your statements on my edits is your opinion, and not fact. Again, your constant pushing of your single POV on Nostradamus is the reason why the article is a mess. I just stumbled onto the article for a journalistic article, and I have to tell you that there are newspaper editors ands journalists who already have reduced their use of Wikipedia because of people like you PL. I went to use the Wikipedia resource for work on Nostradamus, and that is how I came to join Wikipedia. I could not USE your version, and I know others who could not as well. So, because I think Wikipedia is an encyclopedic treaure that should not be slighted, I joined up, gave money to the cause, and became an editor, hoping to add my knowledge, and experience on astrology, and on Nostradamus, among related topics.Theo 16:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

One more item about archiving

The notice that you see about suggested page size is outdated, from the days of old browsers. There has been discussion on the technical board for administrators about dropping it, or at least boosting it to 100 K or more. So I don't think we need to worry about this page becoming unreadable for technical reasons due to length, at least not yet. Trimming or breaking up longer articles is good for readability, but that doesn't necessarily apply to Talk pages.

The question, then is: Is the discussion on this page at a point where we can archive all this and start over, or will that disrupt the flow of thought? - DavidWBrooks 14:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...If Theo and I are now going to start discussing editing the article, I've a feeling that this might be a good moment to take a break, provided he has read the immediately foregoing, since the discussions may be lengthy and detailed! So how about archiving as soon as he replies yea or nay to what is proposed? --PL 16:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)