Talk:Nostradamus/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

What if

Nostradom could do what it is many suspect he could do?

"Nostradamus claimed to base his predictions on judicial astrology — the astrological assessment of the 'quality' of expected future developments —"

After all we "can" prove there are people in this world which can perform mysterious techniques which cannot, have not & will not be performed by anyone else.

Great article, very well done. It is however obvious it was authored by a skeptic. Lighttraveler 22:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is based throughout on the reputable sources listed. Up to you to decide, after studying them, whether they are 'skeptical' or merely factual. --PL 07:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Alas, there appears to be a movement afoot, especially in the US, to define people concerned with facts, (oddly dismissed as "reality-based thinkers"), as skeptics, cynics, enemies of freedom, etc. Of course, as a "reality-based thinker" meself, I note that this movement is best described as being driven by the axiom "the facts ruin a good story". •Jim62sch• 13:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"The United States in particular will be subject to serious natural disasters, particularly earthquakes and flooding, and flatten the nation from end to end, causing enormous conflict, despair, and misery. The US will be bankrupted attempting to deal with its disasters. Three other great nations will send aid to help the citizens survive."

That was here[1] as part of an excerpt of "his" new book, World War III. This is pretty much bull shit, as it mentions the United States, directly, using the name of our country over 200 years before it was formed. Knightskye 02:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

And it has nothing to do with the article or its listed sources. --PL 11:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Please... Nostradamus is extremely vauge in all of his predictions... "In a great city, two towers shall burn and rise again as 1" And the point is... Could have been any of 1000's of towers... heck, I probabally should edit the article to place in some information about how vauge he is... -_- Javascap 02:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Er... Nostradamus never wrote that, and isn't always vague (though he usually is!). I think you may find that the point is referred to in the main article. --PL 10:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

(UTC)I must agree because during one of his quatrains he writes "By great sound the "waterspout" will tremble, harmony broken lifting its head to sky, Bouche blood-covered will float in the blood, on ground the face anointed with milk and honey" ~Nostradamus I.57 Some say it could be the assasination of President Bush, but could it be the assasination of a monarch? Nobody knows, so as far as i'm concerned it is a load of bunk, this guy could have been the first to discover weed, at best.[Special:Contributions/24.151.83.39|24.151.83.39]] (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2008

l. So it might seem if you persist in using automatic translation!

2. This board is here for discussing the article, not Nostradamus and his writings (see rubric). --PL (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(UTC) There is no other translation!!!!! and it does not matter which we are talking about because the article relates to Nostradmus which relate to his false prophecies. If you believe this then you need a reality check because the only people that believe this are looking too far into it and half the phrofets were only stoned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.52.4 (talk)

I must say that I trust the extremely reputable Åke Ohlmarks that relays that M. Nostredame used his Greek-oracle inspired divining technique and only used astrology for dating many events in an obscure manner to not help evil persons too much, Yes I think I trust him more than people that saw a TV Documentary on MN last week or read about the y2k byg way back when, and 2 the towers that were libraries where he got his prophesies from ofc and later was destroyed as ppl could read in their mail, and on his wikipage... RupertJanzzon (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Prophecies 'by' Nostradamus ?

Under Literary Sources, about half way down, an assertion is made that the title "Les Propheties De M.Michael Nostradamus" is

   a title that, in French, as easily means "The Prophecies, BY M. Michel Nostradamus", 

This is not correct, and most French speaking people will see this immediately as both false and dishonest. In a book title, de here unambiguously means of. Only par could possibly mean by in a book title. While ultimately the more general point being made is meritorious, de is most certainly not evidence of it, and you should not try to introduce a false claim to support it. It totally destroys the credibility of this otherwise excellent treatment, and which credibility is paramount in dealing with this particularly difficult subject matter.

This claim should be removed and the related passages simply rewritten to work without it.

Abunyip 23:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

So, you read 16th century French, yes? Unlikely, yes? One cannot judge the writing style of 450 years ago by the writing style of today. •Jim62sch• 00:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The equivalence of 'de' and 'par' in this context (the former reflecting normal Latin use of the genitive for the author, in an age when Latin precedent was all) has been confirmed by at least one native French speaker here. Specialists commonly refer to Les Propheties, not Les Propheties de M. Michel Nostradamus, as the title. Meanwhile...

- Paraphrase de C. Galen, sus l'exortation de Menodote... Traduict de Latin en Francoys... (Nostradamus, 1557) – i.e. Nostradamus's translation of the paraphase by Galen of Menodotus

- Letre de Maistre Michel Nostradamus... (Nostradamus, 1566)

- Elegie de P. de Ronsard Vandomois, sur les troubles d'Amboise... (1562)

- Palinodies de Pierre de Ronsard... (1563)

In publications of the time, 'par' is normally reserved either for the explicit expression 'Composée par', or for the publisher (where it is presumably the equivalent of the Latin per).

Even modern French has:

- Phèdre de Racine

- Horace de Corneille

- Le bourgeois gentilhomme de Molière

- Les misérables de Victor Hugo

- La peste de Camus

- Le mariage de Figaro de Mozart... and so on. --PL 08:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraphs I mentioned do not make any reference to OLD French noted above. The generalisation that "de" can mean "par" simply does not ring true in MODERN French. A small qualification (eg "...in OLD French...") would greatly help restore confidence to naive readers such as myself. Or do you expect everyone reading this to understand OLD French ? Judging from the above, evidently not. (Sorry if I sound abrupt, but I really want this peice to work for you. Its a great expose of Dr No.)  :-) Abunyip 03:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

But I have just demonstrated to you (via no less than six examples) that, where authorship is concerned, de and par are equivalent in modern French, too! Is this not enough for you? If not, I will re-phrase slightly, but I really don't see your point. --PL 08:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Nor do I see the point. Oh, BTW, Nosty wrote in Middle French, not Old French, a language that had ceased to be used 200 years earlier. •Jim62sch• 12:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I added a wiki link. •Jim62sch• 12:57, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but it isn't necessary to specify Middle, rather than Modern French. It still applies today. --PL 15:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

From your comments PL, it seems that use of de is at best, ambiguous in each of modern, middle or old french. However, use of par is unambiguous. I'm just trying to point out that while de may suggest par (or by), use of de isn't sufficient to be used as evidence for actually meaning or intending par (or by). Logically, it simply does not follow that it is in any way erronerous to refer to the "Prophecies OF Nostradamus", or that it is in any way equally or more correct to refer to the "Prophecies BY Nostradamus". I understand what you're trying to say, that one COULD understand de to mean "Prophecies BY Nostradamus", but thats as far as you can take it. You cannot draw any conclusion based on this ambiguity, except that Dr No. was perhaps being deliberately ambiguous so as to apparently claim as his own the Prohecies of others. I think this whole issue has to do with this apparent weakness in French that does not exist in English. In English "of" can never mean "by". In the 6 examples above the English translations would be: - Racine's Phèdre - Corneille's Horace - Molière's Le bourgeois gentilhomme - Victor Hugo's Les misérables - Camus's La peste - Mozart's Le mariage de Figaro ... and finally, - Nostradamus' Prophecies.

In other words, English drops the of altogether to keep the same ambiguous context of the french de. Does that help ? Abunyip 17:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Not really. The 'of' was never there to drop. You are right that neither is necessarily more accurate than the other, though. That's why the article specifically says 'as easily means'. Meanwhile, if Les misérables has to be rendered as 'Victor Hugo's Les misérables ', then Les Propheties should presumably be rendered as 'Nostradamus' Les Propheties '. Or at least, that is at least as valid as Nostradamus' Propheties. Which, of course, is where we came in... --PL 10:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

English drops the of? Precisely what do you think the genitive apostrophe s is there for?

I really need to ask one question: what level of French do you claim? •Jim62sch• 00:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm all done here. I dont intend to start a flame. I have a doctorate in Computer Science and I understand logic. I have high school French but it matters not one jot, because this discussion is about logic not French. To respond in full to Jim would be repeating myself. However FYI, the genetive apostrophe in Nostradamus' Prophecies does not imply either by or of. It is ambiguous and can mean anything, any word you like, that associates the ownership of "Prophecies" to "Nostradamus". That you can find a candidate word creating that association, such as by, does not mean that by was intended. To draw that conclusion is to remove the ambiguity. Oh, there I go... repeating myself already... Have a nice day. Abunyip 07:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have stated the case correctly. Either is possible, just as the article originally suggested. --PL 10:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok have it your way.

     a title that, in French, as easily means "The Prophecies, by M. Michel Nostradamus", 
     which is precisely what they were

But "which is precisely what they were" is hardly suggesting that either is possible. Its claiming that they were IN FACT Prophecies BY Nostradamus. However, the article is an excellent peice of work as it is. Even if you agreed with me, it would be only a minor change. I can see the point is in any case, rather pedantic. Thank you for making your valuable research available on Wikipedia, and the opportunity to discuss it with you. Very much appreciated. Abunyip 11:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that Nostradamus work, especially Les Prophecies was heavily bootlegged and many additional quatrains were added in, sometimes as reissues by Michel, sometimes otherwise. Furthermore, many spelling inaccuracies occur on the bootlegged editions. AlexOvShaolin 04:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Well...

1. There was no work entitled Les Prophecies: please refer to the article.

2. Please cite your sources for alleging that 'many additional quatrains were added in, sometimes as reissues by Michel, sometimes otherwise'.

3. Many spelling inaccuracies occur in all editions! --PL 09:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is "Nostradamus" a single-name pseudonym ?

The category "People known by single-name pseudonyms" seems obscure to me. It is explained as : "People who are known primarily by their first name."

Nostradamus isn't a first name, I think ?

Marvoir 17:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You're correct. Prince, (before he became "the-artist-formerly-known-as-Prince, and after he reverted back), Madonna, Bono (notice these people are all in music?), Ichiro, would probably count (although none of those are true pseudonyms except Bono), but while Nosty is primarily known by his last name only, that clearly doesn't count. •Jim62sch• 22:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Upright

I saw a tv show that said he was found dead, by his servant, standing up and was also laid to rest standing up for that same reason. The show was on the history channel or The Learning Channel. (moved from article revision as of 16:24, 29 November 2006 by User:64.198.46.28.

Sure you did! It's an old, old story. But if you care to read the article, under 'Alternative Views', you will see that there is absolutely no contemporary evidence for this, nor is anything of the kind suggested in his Will. In fact it was disgraceful of the Channel to peddle it (I acted as adviser, but they failed to consult me on this one). His secretary allegedly found him dead 'between the bed and bench' (nothing about 'standing up'). His present tomb, certainly, is firmly horizontal (see photo in article). It's possible that the 'standing up' idea originally came from the fact that one surviving section of the chapel where he was originally buried contains a small vertical alcove a bit like a built-in wardrobe, and the owners of the restaurant that now incorporates it like to claim that 'that was his tomb'. Wouldn't you?! The History Channel is currently planning another one, and their producers have promised me that this time it really will be factual. I'll believe it when I see it! ;) --PL 16:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

PS It wasn't, of course! --PL (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

All: I apologize in advance if this is in the wrong place.... in the "Final years and death" section the article says: "He was buried then buried standing in a local Franciscan Chapel". Yet later on it says there is no evidence of him being buried upright. Might I suggest you be consistent (and correct the syntax) and instead say something on the order of "There is no evidence substantiating various assertions he was buried standing...." or something of that nature. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.111.63.90 (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. It's obviously an idiocy that crept in unnoticed. It doesn't even make sense. Duly corrected. --PL (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Student Years

Under this heading it says, "He was expelled again". I am confused as I saw no reference to him being expelled for a first time. His original university closed due to the plague but this was hardly an expulsion. Might we drop the "again"? Bstone 07:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that was there -- I think it my have been a remnant of a change in wording. Anyway, I removed it. •Jim62sch• 09:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah me! What it is to be a splitter of hairs! 'Again' merely implies reversal of movement, as in 'kicked out again', or even 're-moved'. However, have it your own way! ;) --PL 10:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

2012

Wasn't the the guy who came up w/ the world ending in 2012?

1. No. You're thinking of the alleged Mayan prophecies. The popular authors who like to propagate the myth that their calendar predicted the end of the world for 20 December 2012 usually ignore completely what the reputable research actually says -- namely that 20 December 2012 will be only 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.13.0.0.0.0 on the vigesimal Mayan long count, whereas the end of the current world is not due to occur until 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0 -- which lies literally trillions of trillions of years in the future! Please refer to the Wikipedia article on the subject at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar.

2. That said, this forum is not dedicated to discussing Nostradamus, but only the article! --PL 10:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Name and title

While researching Nostradamus in college, I found the spelling "Nostradame" only in tabloid-style junk publications, with serious sources say "Michel de Notredame". "Nostramdame" does not appear to be a French name, but a mangling of French and Latin.

His book of prophecies is often referred to as Les Siècles (Centuries). Why is it not even mentioned here? If it is spurious, it ought to be mentioned as such. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The normal spelling is and was 'Nostredame' (based on its original Latin form, de nostra domina, used by both himself and his father), and the title was always Les Propheties, as you can see for yourself by following up on the various facsimile links provided (have you done so?). Les Siècles is the French word for entirely the wrong kind of Centuries, using an accent that was seldom if ever used at the time, and I've only seen that particular idiocy once, in a hopelessly unreliable publication by somebody who had presumably never even seen them! I can't imagine what 'serious sources' you've been looking at! ALL the reputable sources listed use the form 'Nostredame' and the title 'Les Propheties'. Check them out! --PL 10:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What's the idiotic source that called it Les Siècles. IIRC, the film Prophecies of Nostradamus put that on the cover of the book in the prologue, but that film is Japanese, so they get a little slack. --Scottandrewhutchins 16:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)'

From here on it is a different person speaking an Opinion, Point Of Veiw, Or Fact...... The 12.21.12 (Dec. 21st 2012) Prophecies Involve much about the antichrist. Many beleive the third(Most powerful devilish man) is among us at this time...... his name, Mabus, written in Garencieres. I think that a antichrist is a Devilish person that has control of many, The reason I think so is because in Garencieres, Les Siecles, it is said not exactly but that The First Antichrist was Napolian, French Emp an secretary of French Army. And that the second was Adoulf Hitler, In complete control of the german army "Nazis." Both of these men had power. Ray Mabus I say Mabus In italics, Is the Secretary of The American Navy & Some of Marines, Scares me. Is he is here with us today? Raymond Edwin Mabus was also the state governor of Mississipppi from 1988-1992. Follow this link for more info on the "Mississippi Man." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Mabus This Post was made by a 11yr old, Really im drop dead serious.

And how would Garencieres, writing in 1672, have known anything about either Napoleon or Hitler? The person you're referring to is probably the late Erika Cheetham (or one of her successors). However, please note that:

• Nostradamus didn't mention 'three antichrists', not even at verse VIII.77.
• Pau, Nay and Loron (VIII.1) are simply three places in SW France situated no more than a few miles from each other (and Napoleon was never king, as the proposed anagram would require).
• 'Hister', as Nostradamus himself explains in one of his Almanacs, is simply a classical name for the river Danube.
• Mabus(e) was simply the name of a contemporary Flemish painter, the details of whose death in 1532 exactly fit the circumstances described in verse II.62, written in 1554/5 -- which should give you some idea at least of how Nostradamus actually wrote his prophecies. Granted, Ray Mabus's family tell me they are interested to read all the speculation about him, but... (!!) --PL (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

WWIII?

Here is a prophecy predicted by him(It's not nearly in the correct words, I cannot remember it well). "After 57 peaceful years after the two great wars, another antichrist will rise, his war wil last twenty-seven years." When do you think it will happen? Also, is this at all connected to the mayan and the I ching date of Dec. 21, 2012? (Darth Vader II 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC))

You seem to be referring to quatrain VIII.77, of which the French reads:

L’antechrist trois bien tost annichilez,

Vingt & sept ans sang durera sa guerre,

Les heretiques mortz, captifs, exilez,

Sang corps humain eau rogie gresler terre.

My published translation of this reads:

The Antichrist - three very soon laid low -

His war of blood shall last seven years and twenty.

Heretics dead, captives to exile go:

Blood, corpses: water red on earth a-plenty.

This seems to be based on the contemporary Wars of Religion. I've no idea when or if it will also happen in the future, and (as you can see from the article) it is doubtful if Nostradamus did either! The date of Dec 21 has no particular significance in the Mayan calendar, other than the end of a minor, 400-year cycle. If you read the reputable research (such as Schele and Freidel -- see '2012' above and refer to[2]), you will discover that the Mayan 'end of the world' is not due for trillions and trillions of years. But then this forum is for discussing the article, not Nostradamus himself.--PL 11:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As a classical astrologer, actually the date of December 21 does have significance. The Mayans related it to the Winter Solstice, when the Sun enters tropical Capricorn. The 2012 date is related as well to the passage of the lunar nodes, called the Dragon's Head and Dragon's Tail. At sunrise on December 21, 2012 — for the first time in 26,000 years — the Sun will rise at 0-degrees tropical Capricorn to conjoin the intersection of the Milky Way and the plane of the ecliptic, outlining in the sky a great cross of stars and planets. The cosmic cross is considered to be an embodiment of what is called "the Sacred Tree," The Tree of Life — a tree remembered in all the world’s spiritual traditions. However, the Mayans never mentioned "the end of the world" - their astrologers only noted the astrological significance of the transits they calculated to the year 2012. The above verse by Nostradamus is related to what he said was the last Anti-Christ. His war of blood, to last 27 years, is also mentioned in Nostradamus' prose.Theo 13:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

57 Years of peace after 2 great wars would put the date at 2002. WWII ended in 1945. This could mean the war on terrorism that Bush started for Iraq/Afghan war. If thats the case then Bush is the anti-christ and his war will last 27 years. Also 2012 is becoming too hype just like Y2K.Kris 17:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

May I offer some alternative translations if it is not known what event it is about?

I don't mean to "interpret" here, but only to illustrate a type of "challenge" or "choices" that Nostradamus commentators are facing in general.

The Antichrist - three pretty soon annihilated / reduced to zero / annulled.

The latter 2 possibilities are etymologically justified (reduced to zero, annulled).

Annulling: one could think of annulling undesired edicts, laws, marriages...

Annihilation: one could think of a crushing defeat, extermination etc...

Reduced to zero: An alliance of 3 members dissolving, or a triumvirate losing all its members soon, etc.

What was the reason to translate the word annihilated with "laid down" and not just "annihilated"?

The -ez ending of "Annihilez" can be singular as well even if most common use is plural. The event itself will decide what's the right translation.

The Antichrist III pretty soon annihilated

This possibility arises when the sentence is phrased as a single sentence.

The number three may be a hint to the numbering of a king's name, like Philip III, Ferdinand III etc.

Verse 4: Blood, human bodies, reddened water, [it's] hailing [on the] land

The translation "human bodies" makes it clear to a non-French reader that it is about human bodies. Verse 4 is in the style of summing up things. Hail is a destructive type of weather to harvests, no-one likes to be exposed to it, it could symbolize a hail of cannonballs, musket volleys or even stone throwing by women and children on the battered ramparts of a city, which are all common in historic wars of religion. I've never heard of "gresler" meaning "a-plenty".

When I would search for historical events (still on my agenda :-)) I'd look for a 27-year involvement of a ruler in a war, or perhaps if there is a reason to split up the German War in a distinctive phase lasting from 1621-1648 (27 years)

Melambdalguq (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising these interesting points. I don’t know which translation you’re referring to, but the much more literal one here renders VIII.77 as:

The antichrist, (the) three having very soon been annihilated,

twenty-seven years his war shall last.

The heretics [shall be] dead, captive, exiled:

blood [from] human bodies, reddened water shall splatter the earth.

It’s my own verse-translation that says:

The Antichrist - three very soon laid low -

His war of blood shall last seven years and twenty.

Heretics dead, captives to exile go:

Blood, corpses: water red on earth a-plenty.

-- but that’s purely in order to make it rhyme, with the last word designed to render the idea of the 'rain' splattering the earth (it’s a hazard of the trade!).

The source suggested is the contemporary Wars of Religion, presided over by John Calvin, leader of the Protestant cause from late 1536 until his death in May 1564, and widely regarded by Catholics as the Antichrist in person, who had persecuted Pierre Ameaux, exiled Ami Perrin and Jérôme Bolsec and burned at the stake Jacques Gruet and, in 1553, Michael Servetus. (The problem there, though, is... how did Nostradamus know about 1564 in 1558? In other words, has the 1568 version that we know been edited by Chavigny after the event? This will only become clear once the long-lost 1558 edition is rediscovered.)

Rendering ‘L’Antechrist trois…’ as ‘The Third Antichrist’ doesn’t seem to be valid, as the use of ordinal numbers as if they were cardinals didn’t become general until the 17th century. Rabelais, for example, calls his Book III ‘Le Tiers Livre’, and Nostradamus calls his Century III ‘Centurie tierce’. Ergo the word ‘trois’ goes with the words that follow, not with ‘L’Antechrist’. You're right that 'annihilez' can be either singular or plural, though the plural would be more normal: the masculine singular would normally end in -é.

Why not join the Nostradamus Research Group (see External links) to discuss this and related matters? --PL (talk) 09:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer to join the research group, I'll have a look there asap! I'm not referring to any translation that I know of, I did that myself. I have nothing to add to the literal one, very well done. For precision's sake (when researching) I'd personally go for the literal one, but not without saying you did an amazing job making it rime, keeping a consistency of style, and staying very close to a literal translation at the same time. They're both yours aren't they? Melambdalguq (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yip. Kind of you. Actually, I've just checked quickly through the Centuries and found just 101 past participle endings in -ez: all but one of them (X.25) are plural -- not least exilez in line 3 of this very verse, of course! Not sure where I got the idea that Latin -atus could become Old French -ez. Apparently that only applied to natus, which became nez before it became né. (Please excuse the manic detail -- it happens to be my subject!). --PL (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

date anomalies?

The first paragraph says he was born in 1600, and his most famous work was first published in 1555. 71.164.253.198 01:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)MikeB

Thanks for noticing the idiot date-change -- one of those things that manages to slip past from time to time, alas. Now corrected. I wonder how many student essays have duly gone on to reproduce it? ;) --PL 08:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a bit of vandalism from someone in Mt Laurel, New Jersey...no doubt a mischievous kid. •Jim62sch• 19:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Akashic records

In the article Akashic records, it is said that Nostradamus told that he was accessing to these records. If it was true, it would have to be in his article, don´t you think?

Yes, but in that case the article Akashic records is wrong. There is absolutely no evidence, or claim by Nostradamus, of anything of the kind. I must take a look at the article!... --PL 08:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Content on Videl

I added content on Videl considering the addition and tone of the critical view presented by PL within the article. It is important to see the context, and sample Videl's comments on Nostradamus considering the previous paragraph, as it explains what Videl's views were in light of his problems with Nostradamus' skills as an astrologer. As for PL comments that the content on Videl is "too much detail," It is only a paragraph which continues follows PL's addition of Videl's comments. Wikipedia is an electronic encyclopedia. Is it not? Thanks. Theo 06:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

If you think the details about Videl are important, Theo, I suggest (as per my edit comment) that you write a separate article about him, then insert a link to it in the article. Otherwise it would suffice to insert a single qualificatory phrase, if necessary. The article is over-long as it is. --PL 08:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan to me. That essay was just TMI for the article. •Jim62sch• 20:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Nostradamus in music

Nikolo Kotzev's Nostradamus is a metal opera completely based on the legends about Nostradamus. It deserves at least a mentioning in the main article 81.170.188.171 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Heavy Metal band Judas Priest will release a new CD with 23 songs based on Nostradamus. Considering that Judas Priest is a huge band, should it mentioned in Popular culture section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.242.23 (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologise if I missed it somehwere in the article but if it is not there then I believe that it should be mentioned in the article about music created to illustrate Nostradamus's life and/or prophecies.For example, the song 'Nostradamus' by the artist 'Al Stewart' which is almost 10 minutes long (9:44 exactly according to my version) which reveals many of the prophecies in the song.

Here are some useful lyric references that contain the prophecies:

'A king shall fall and put to death by the English parliament shall be Fire and plague to London come in the year of six and twenties three An emperor of France shall rise who will be born near Italy His rule cost his empire dear, Napoloron his name shall be

From Castile does Franco come and the Government driven out shall be An English king seeks divorce, and from his throne cast down is he One named Hister shall become a captain of Greater Germanie No law does this man observe and bloody his rise and fall shall be'

'In the new lands of America three brothers now shall come to power Two alone are born to rule but all must die before their hour Two great men yet brothers not make the north united stand Its power be seen to grow, and fear possess the eastern lands

Three leagues from the gates of Rome a Pope named Pol is doomed to die A great wall that divides a city at this time is cast aside These are the signs I bring to you to show you when the time is nigh'

Also,is it mentioned in the article that Nostradamus means 'Our Lady'.If not I think this is important information for the article and will be good for discussion because it is possible that when the song lyric says 'I am the eyes of Nostradamus' it could have a double meaning being that it is not just the eyes of Nostradamus himself but the eyes of 'Our Lady',the Virgin Mary.

Please, if you have not already,consider these things for the article if you have the time.Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.14.97 (talk) 10:36, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Well, for a start, most of the above translations are hopelessly inaccurate, and in some cases totally misleading. If you want to check them I suggest you follow up the various links in the main article on Nostradamus – not that they all provide entirely reliable translations, either! As for the name 'Nostradamus', this doesn't mean anything – apart, possibly, from 'we dispense quackeries (nostrums)' in Latin. It is based, however, on the Latin 'de nostra domina' (of Our Lady), but I doubt very much whether Al Stewart intended that! You will find him suitably referenced in the article Nostradamus in popular culture, which is the proper place for such matters. --PL 09:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

Rudy Cambier

I've removed the following text:

"According to prof. Rudy Cambier's research, the "prophecies" are no predictions at all, but a manuscript stolen from the monk Yves de Lessines, who wrote it two centuries earlier to describe in an encrypted way where the treasure of the Templars was hidden. See: [3]."

There are a large number of tiny-minority theories and views surrounding Nostradamus, and this one appears to not be notable, judging by various measures. For example, he is not cited in several well known reference works as a significant theorist, nor is the above theory apparently widely recorded within reliable sources, nor does an online search reveal much more than booksellers and fringe theorist websites.

Wikipedia requires reliable, credible, verifiable sources according to communal editorial standards, and evidence that the theory is notable, to be mentioned. At present, none are evidenced. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Well checked! Please see my review of Cambier's book at [4]. --PL (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"NPOV?"

The "Alternative Views" section contains the fragment "Edgar Leoni's unusually dispassionate Nostradamus and His Prophecies, which is universally regarded as by far the best and most comprehensive treatment and analysis of Nostradamus in English prior to 1990." If this article was not locked, I would have toned this down a bit, myself. Anyone with an account care to fix this? 65.183.135.166 (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, see what you think now... --PL (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

on the same topic, "Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view." seems a wee bit biased. NPOV anyone?

ie, Although Halbronn is one of the formost scholars of nostradamus's texts and associated archives, having conducted research on many of them, most other specialists in the field reject this view.

If you insist, I'd suggest the slightly less illiterate and more accurate: "Although Halbronn is one of the foremost experts on Nostradamus's texts and the associated archives, having dug out, researched and published many of them, most other specialists in the field reject this view." Up to you to insert it, though! --PL (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits in red

Why are the latest edits to the article coming out in red? They're meant to be the same colour as the bits they were inserted into! --PL (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For the same reason that fire engine is blue but nice shiny fire engine that saved my house is red. You've put square brackets around too much text. I've fixed this. I don't believe it's necessary to universally use "14/21 December" unless there truly is no consensus. Chris Cunningham (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, understood. Reference to the external links (CURA academic forum) will confirm recent published doubts about the exact birth-date.--PL (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thumperwad

I notice that he can't be bothered with the talk page. Nothing new really, he's done this before -- hit and run edits that serve no real purpose. Good thing you caught them, PL. •Jim62sch• 20:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken this comment to ANI, but I'm happy to discuss individual parts of these edits in the hope that they can be restored.

1. Relying on an image to provide text in the middle of the "Nostradamus's Sources" section is simply not workable. Users who are unable to read the text in the image are simply stuck halfway into the sentence. At the very least, the text in the caption must be changed simply to the name of the title, for accessibility reasons.
2. There are too many external links. WP:EL suggests several points: all extlinks should be confined to the end of the article, we should avoid foreign-language links, and only the most relevant links should be included. So this should be re-tagged for now.

The internal links thing I'm fine with dropping if it's a point of contention. Chris Cunningham (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat relieved that you're rather belatedly bothering to consult us about your most recent proposed changes, Chris Cunningham, since their over-all effect was in fact to make this Featured Article, which nobody else has complained seriously about for many moons, less intelligible, self-contradictory and in one case just crassly wrong. Which was a pity, as your infobox idea looks to have been a good one. As for your numbered points:

1. I'm afraid the assumption has to be that users can read the text in this and other images: certainly nobody has ever complained here that they can't. Moreover, in this particular case, the whole point of the argument is the way in which the title page is printed and set out, so its format is actually a vital part of the presentation. I know of no Wikipedia rule that facsimiles can't be part of the presentation.

2. Nobody has ever complained, either, about the number of this Featured Article's external links, all of which are relevant, all of which are certainly important (given the almost uniquely controversial nature of the subject), many of which are carefully grouped (thanks to a huge amount of hard work on Jim's part)specifically in order to avoid multiple references to a single source, and all of which are indeed confined to the end of the article (quite how you could imagine that they're not I don't know). As for foreign-language links, not only Nostradamus's own works, but the vast bulk of the research into him and them has been specifically done in French (what else would you expect?), so what else are we supposed to refer to, for heaven's sake? Perhaps we should pretend he was Welsh? ;) Rules (even Wikipedia ones) do need to be interpreted with at least a modicum of common sense, you know! However, if you see points in the notes that need tidying up, I hope you will feel free to do so. --PL (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the cycle goes "be bold, revert, discuss". It is a misconception that people have to go asking permission before editing established articles, and sadly it is one which generates vociferous abuse at editors acting in good faith (as I have here). I don't have a problem with being reverted in good faith, but I do take issue with having my work insulted rather then discussed neutrally.

Secondly, historical precedent is not a reason to oppose edits. FA is not the highest pinnacle of article development; it it was, we'd just freeze articles where they are.

To address the actual issues:

1. Wikipedia:Accessibility is an established guideline and should not be disregarded lightly. It should be followed in spirit as well as in letter. If a user with a screen reader cannot make sense of that sentence, the article should be edited until it does. The only counterclaim here is the argument that having an inline image is a cute typographical trick. Frankly, I don't think that's a very powerful argument.
2. At least two extlinks are used in the article body, at this point:

   A range of quite different views are expressed in printed literature and on the Internet. At one end of the spectrum, there are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn (see [5] and [6]),

   This should be formatted as a reference.

Anyway, I'm disappointed that what should be a healthy discussion has been accompanied by the acrimony that it has, but I see no reason we can't continue to cooperatively edit. Chris Cunningham (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No insult intended. You are right that changes don't have to be discussed beforehand, but when they are as sweeping as those you proposed it would have been wise, don't you think? You are also right that history is not a reason to oppose edits, but it ought to have given you reason to think a little more carefully before plunging in, oughtn't it -- especially with a Featured Article that has been specifically selected for its excellence!

As for your specific issues,

1. You seem not to have understood the point. The ambiguity of the title page's meaning is entirely the result of its layout. This therefore has to be demonstrated, whether in the course of the argument or via a direct reference to an image beside it. I repeat that nobody has ever complained about this.

2. Internet is not an external link. You are right about the other pair, though. Please feel free to reformat the reference.

Re your final point, nor do I see any reason why we can't continue to edit cooperatively! So let's have your proposals! --PL (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't see these edits as "sweeping changes". I suppose it depends on one's definition of "sweeping". But still. Proposals!

1. That nobody has complained perhaps suggests that no blind people are interested in Nostradamus; it does not indicate that nothing could be improved. The simple solution would be to float the image next to the section and to replace it inline with its title. That's basically what I did, although I moved the image to the top of the section instead of alongside the relevant text.
2. Done. I've noticed a few more: Collégiale St-Laurent, along with a handful of books, are all given inline extlinks. These should be either converted to footnotes or moved to a Bibliography section. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Floating the image next to the section might work, but you'll need to be very careful about how you link it to the text, or you'll be sliding into crass error again!

2. Thanks. The link to Halbronn works OK, except that the first word needs a capital letter. As for 'a handful of books' (actually the books!), I find myself wondering whether you have actually read the article, let alone understood it. They are already in the Bibliography section, which (for good reason!) is entitled 'Sources'. But the 'Works' section is an explanatory item in itself, peculiar to Nostradamus, and the central point of the whole article. They therefore need to stay where they are. You're welcome to convert these references to footnotes, though, as also the Collégiale St-Laurent link. --PL (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The floating image is a no in my opinion -- it has the potential to be problematic, and is a fix for something that isn't broken.

I agree with PL on the rest. •Jim62sch• 20:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

'No answer,' was the stern reply! Has he run off and left us in the lurch? If so, it would rather tend to justify your initial comment, wouldn't it, Jim?! --PL (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In case you hadn't noticed, this is the holiday season; a 36-hour lapse in conversation over Hogmanay is not an indication of "hit and run editing". I'd appreciate it if this would be the last time my good faith were questioned, because it's getting incredibly tiring.

As for the book references, my bad; that means there's no reason for these to be externally linked inline. A reference is meant to be a citation which supports a statement, not just a pointer to a resource. As for the floating image, I've already explained why it's broken, so I'm looking for some replacement text which you wouldn't feel was "crass error". Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah -- sorry! Not sure what you mean by "there's no reason for these to be externally linked inline", though. There is every reason why the book titles should be linked to something, so that readers know what is being referred to, since there isn't room to quote it all in the article! Meanwhile, please cite the Wikipedia rubric stating specifically that "a reference is meant to be a citation which supports a statement, not just a pointer to a resource". (If that's the case, then clearly the book titles should be directly linked as at present, not just given a footnote reference, so please leave them alone.) By all means try out your suggested replacement text here. --PL (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so we have another Scotsman in our midst. Chris, are you conversant in Scots?

I have to agree with Peter here. The other option would be to have the book titles link to a Wikimedia source, but in any case, this is not really an instance where a ref would work. I understand the aesthetic desire to remove the external link, but I'm afraid I don't see the functional need to do so. Orrabest. •Jim62sch• 17:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm only as conversant in Scots as is required to address my relatives, alas. Anyway, the book thing doesn't bother me enough to get into an argument about it, but it was worth bringing up. Chris Cunningham (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Quatrain X.72 (Fatima & Nostradamus)

The following lines were reverted by editor PL with the comment "Fatima reference removed as inconsistent with the article and its sources (hundreds of events can be made to fit X.72 with a bit of twisting!) (...)". It is not my purpose here to question this judgement; however, as the data comes from reputable historians with a vast and solid background in the academic environment of the mentioned country of western Europe (Univ. of Porto, Univ. Fernando Pessoa, ex-Inst. Nac. de Investigação Científica [a body with similar functions to the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S.], ...); it may be interesting for our readers to get acquainted with at least the sintectic idea presented through these brief lines, derived from their conclusions (source provided):

« Some Portuguese academic scholars have reported, in one of the publications related to their research conducted into the phenomena of Our Lady of Fatima for about two decades, namely the "third secret", that the events of attrocity which occurred at the city of Dili in East Timor, during the month of September 1999, are the events to which the vision presented by Nostradamus in quatrain X.72 applies, as an exact complementarity to the vision described in the third secret of Fatima.^[7]

1. ^ d'Armada, Fina (preface by Prof. Joaquim Fernandes), O Segredo de Fátima e Nostradamus [The Secret of Fatima and Nostradamus], ISBN 972-8605-37-4, Edições Ésquilo, Lisbon, April 2004, 238 pages »

Cheers, --Tekto9 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Tekto9. May I come back on it tomorrow? --PL (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi editor PL! A stranger in this house of yours I am & the message I carry is not of my own; so, please feel free to address the previous comment according to your own discretion. Thank you. --Tekto9 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that opening the article up to the interpretations by alleged "scholars" (not sure what an academic scholar is) of Nostrandamus' verbal noodlings is not a good idea. If, on the other hand, you want to spin off an article with these "academic" or "scholarly" claims of having ferreted out the true meaning (revealed truth and all that), you would be OK. •Jim62sch• 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi editor Jim62sch! Please let me assure you that whatever the decision, I already appreciate the attention you have devoted to this request of mine; and whatever you may decide is fine to me, at this time. Thanks. --Tekto9 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tekto9: if you feel like developing an article as I suggested, I'll help you with it. We just have to be sure that it doesn't become "gossipy" and that we have sources (like the one you provided) for the interpretations. We'd also have to make sure that it's kept neutral, and not History Channel-type ooky-spooky. Let me know if you're interested. •Jim62sch• 19:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Jim62sch, if it was meant to stay in a separate ad hoc article, you may be sure that I wouldn't have brought it here in first place; so, I will have to decline this generous & kindly offer of yours. But, once more, I must thank you for the honor you bestow upon me, of being at the centre of your attention. Nevertheless, my previous point, as stated above, I keep. Regards. --Tekto9 (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OK - my comments, for what they are worth. The first thing that occurs to me is that your piece says absolutely nothing specific about Nostradamus. It merely makes vague allegations about one of his quatrains. The next point is that few, if any, historians are experts on Nostradamus. (There's no shame in that -- very few people are!) Are they, for example, using the original printings (A or X) of the 1568 edition? Did the Fatima revelation say anything about the 'great defraying King' of line 2, or the 'great King from Angoumois' in France of line 3? Are they aware that the verse is merely an astrological projection into the future of the 'resuscitation' of Francis I of France by his captor, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, in his Madrid prison in 1525, as one of our sources has demonstrated? Your piece doesn't answer any of these.

Meanwhile that still leaves the question of interpretation. As you may have noticed, the article is not about interpretations of Nostradamus, even though it briefly lists a handful of the best known of them and dismisses the principles on which they are based. If we started down that road, we would never hear the end of it! The sister article, Nostradamus in popular culture, does admittedly refer to interpretations of X.72, but only (once again) within a critical ambience. Thus, you might not feel that either is a good place to put your piece.

But the main problem is that the piece appears to be essentially a piece of bookspam -- i.e. commercial advertising -- especially its direct link to the title's publicity. I'm afraid that Wikipedia is no place for that! --PL (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In first place, your comments are worth it for various reasons, among them that they convey in a clearly manner your thought and point of view. I could provide a counterpoint rooted in reason to each one of the points raised in your comments in the first and second paragraphs. Nonetheless I won't since, in spite of a possible clarification it could provide, it would not bring a major change to the perspective you hold, thus contributing very little to the final result I was initially aiming. I only regret that you look into my intended simple contribution as "bookspamm" since I tried to provide the source in the most complete form I was able, taking into account that there isn't even a translation, as far as I am aware, into English or any other language to make undesired publicity (spam) in first place. I understand your position and I must accept it as it is. Anyway, a sincere thanks for the attention you devoted to this matter. See you. --Tekto9 (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Tecto9. Whatever your 'counterpoint', the fact remains that the piece gives no specific information about Nostradamus, nor about how the author arrived at his conclusions (which readers would therefore be in no position to examine), and that 'interpretations' are not what either article is about. The reader's only option, therefore, would have been to buy the book. Hence the impression I gained that your presentation and its link were 'bookspam'. I accept your assurance that this was not what was intended, though. Thank you for offering your nicely expressed thoughts. --PL (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Disinterment?

So what year was his body moved to the current chapel? The article is vague about this. --Ragemanchoo (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncertain. Hence the intentionally vague wording. The current tombstone is dated 1813 (see illustration). --PL (talk) 11:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Astrology/Psychics?

Why in the world is the category that Nostradamus is listed in "Astrology/Psychics"? As far as I can tell, there's absolutely nothing "psychic" about he or his explained prophecies, even if they DO turn out to be genuine. Is there some way to just change it to "astrology" or "prophecy," or is this just some sort of general (and honestly pretty crappy) "New Age" category slapped on by Wikipedia, despite the fact that the two fields have nothing to do with one another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagisterMundi (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Beats me! (Actually, it's because the public at large thinks he was psychic, as he himself appears to have done.) But the category was 'slapped on' by an editor such as your good self, not by Wikipedia -- which means that you are perfectly entitled to 'slap it off' again if you wish!--PL (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In one of his forewords he was hesitant to call himself a prophet ("too modest?") but the title of his Prophecies work shows definitely that he thinks about it as prophecy. He claims that the inspiration can be from God only, because of the accuracy of what he saw coming true already since he had some of those visions. He also explicitly states that it is not by some rituals. He says he possessed occult books about alchemy but that he burned them. Burning this type of books happened in the bible during St-Paul, when people joined the first christian communities. It's a sign of completely trusting on faith. I'm pretty sure, even though it may be speculative to other people, that having prophecies asserted his faith within himself even more than he already had. Other interesting thing is that if you filter out the Iamblichus references from his first 2 quatrais, what you see left over is his personal experience which is not active rituals but passive experience without having to perform any odd ritual for itMelambdalguq (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Al Stewart

Al Stewart wrote a song about Nostradamus, it is on the Past Present & Future album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.55.73.216 (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Already included under "Music" section of Nostradamus in popular culture, which is linked from main article. PamD (talk) 10:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Other opinions on dabbing Nostradamus

Copy from Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Other_opinions_on_dabbing_Nostradamus:

I'm looking for some outside opinions as to whether or not Nostradamus should have a hatnote dab that links to Nostradamus (disambiguation). User:PL thinks that having a hatnote is unnecessary, and if any dab link should be present in the article, it should be under the "Popular culture" section, or at the top of the actual Nostradamus in popular culture article, because that's where readers will be looking for those links. I disagree and find this to be inconvenient to the reader and counter to the purpose of disambiguation. The passage from WP:DAB#Usage guidelines that says: "disambiguation links should be placed at the top of an article. Bottom links are deprecated, since they are harder to find and easily missed" applies to this situation, in my opinion. Any thoughts? Nufy8 (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of disambiguation pages is to allow pages with similar names to be easily found. The convention for this, as you seem to know, is to have the link to the disambiguation page at the top of the page. I understand the point that many of the things listed at Nostradamus (disambiguation) are listed at Nostradamus in popular culture, but I think that is actually the fault of the disambiguation page. Articles should be linked to on a disambiguation page if it is likely that someone will search simply for "Notradamus", and mean one of those page. Many of the pop-culture references at Nostradamus (disambiguation) have much more detailed titles; the only two links I'd really feel necessary to keep are the first two, Nostradamus (album) and Nostradamus (arcade game), since their names are truly the same name as the article. Regardless of that, though, if there is a disambiguation page (which there is), it should be linked to at the top of Nostradamus. -- Natalya 20:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't personally think that a disambiguation link is needed at all, since the name Nostradamus isn't ambiguous, and everybody knows who it refers to. If readers have some other specific name based on it in mind, they have only to input it. If they are merely looking for Nostradamus games and albums in general, they can find them under 'Nostradamus in popular culture', which contains all the relevant sections and is specifically linked to by the main article.

The only justification for a disambiguation link would be if there were articles on other members of the Nostradamus family or other people called Nostradamus, which there aren't. --PL (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"Nostradamus" is ambiguous for dab purposes, because there is the person, an album and an arcade game of the same exact name. For everything else, I agree with Natalya. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

"everybody knows who it refers to" is dangerous: do you think everyone interested in the album really knows/cares that it's named after the seer? There are multiple entities which have the title "Nostradamus", so there is a dab page, so there is a hatnote linking to the dab page from the article at the prime, non-disambiguated, meaning. Simple. An alternative would be to have "Nostradamus" link direct to a dab page, but I hazard a guess that most people would agree that the seer is the primary sense of the word, so the present situation is correct, and helpful. PamD (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Nostradamus the man is definitly the main topic of all pages named "Nostradamus", but, as much as we would like, we can't assume that everyone who comes to Wikipedia will know who Nostradamus is. Hence the need for the link to the disambiguation page. -- Natalya 11:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Trying to move this discussion over to Talk:Nostradamus, as this is about application of the guidelines to this specific page. --Marcinjeske (talk) 11:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Clearly, Nostradamus the guy is the dominant topic for 'Nostradamus', but if someone is looking for Nostradamus the game, you cannot expect them to dig through the article on the guy hoping there is a link buried somewhere in there. In fact, neither the album nor the game (or the butterfly for that matter) are mentioned in the article... you have to pick the right link to follow. I would like to point out some similar examples, and ask (at the danger of getting a no response) if the hatnote is not as appropriate here as with:

• Superman - we all know people mean the superhere... but there is still a very useful hatnote pointing to the dab page listing all the films and televisions series and games and such named "Superman" - the only non-Superman related entry I can find is Superman (Nietzsche).
• Copernicus - to take a more similar historical figure, here we also link to a dab page with a bunch of things named after the guy... including a Copernicus (musician) who seems to have adopted the name.
• ditto for Mendel, Galileo, even Jesus Christ has to wear a hatnote at the top of his two pages.

Both application of the guidelines (multiple articles with the same name) and common usage with similar articles (as above) support including the hatnote to the disambiguation page.

BTW, my suggested hatnote was an attempt to address User:PL's concern that everything on the dab was named after N, since otheruses seemed to displease, and to guide users on why they would want to look at the dab page.:

This article is about the 16th century French seer. For other subjects named after Nostradamus, see Nostradamus (disambiguation).

On a side note, who would hate me profusely if I added Notre Dame on the dab page as a misspelling of "Nostredame"? --Marcinjeske (talk) 12:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

On the last question, a "see also" from the dab page to Notre Dame seems perfectly reasonable. On the hatnote question, I see no reason not to use the standard {{otheruses}} (or {{otheruses1}} to show "This article is about the 16th century French apothecary and reputed seer ..."). PamD (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is quite clear to me that a hatnote is needed. This is exactly the situation hatnotes were devised for: a 'root' article with an associated dab page Root (diambiguation). It is important that readers are offered the easiest and fastest way of finding the article they want when they type in "Nostradamu" - this should be the first thing they see on the page. Don't forget, many readers will have no idea who Nastradamus was if they are looking for one of the modern culture topics - to them Nostradamus is indeed ambiguous. Abtract (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you absolutely must, the present brief note leading to a disambiguation page seems more than sufficient. But I really don't see the need to cater for misspellings -- not least because if anybody enters 'Notre Dame' they presumably won't be led to 'Nostradamus': nor should they be! --PL (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, great, that sounds vaguely like we might have a consensus. (Given my unexplainable compulsion to make Nostredamus wear a hatnote, I absolutely must.) The longer hatnote was just a misguided attempt to address concerns about the need... so I think using short version as currently placed is best.

As for Notre Dame, we would naturally provide Nostredame the courtesy of his very own link on Notre Dame. After some clicking around, I note that Messe de Nostre Dame implies that Nostre Dame should be a redirect to Notre Dame, and then we are simply one space away from our seer, Nostredame.I realize some of this stuff is unnecessary to someone who has worked extensively on the article and knows all of the facets, but put yourself in the shoes of someone who heard some "rockin" music at a friend's house... vaguely remembers the title of the album (Nostre-something?)", and goes to Wikipedia to learn more... they might end up at any of these pages we have discussed, and Wikipedia has pretty decent methods (like dab pages and hatnotes) to guide them to the correct page.... it is good to use them. --Marcinjeske (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My hatnote update at Nostradamus

It wasn't a question of notability when I performed this edit. I believe someone can easily mis-type the word, arrive at a "strange" page and become confused, hence, the purpose of the hat (see the ones at Yamucha and Yum cha). Want another? Try Rogue and Rouge. Or Salon and Saloon, etc. Point being, I see no harm in it. Thoughts? Please reply on your talk page, or on Talk:Nostradamus. Prefer keeping all discussions in one page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Above comment copied from my talk page. --Marcinjeske (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So my edit summary was a bit confused: "moved Nas' work over to the dab page... there is not reason that Nastradamus is more notable than some of the other items there" - what I meant to say that there was no obvious way to elevate Nastradamus (a different spelling but also inspired by Nostradamus) above the other articles which needed to be disambiguated. So it makes sense to treat them all somewhat equally on the disambiguation page.

• I will admit that given the concerns about including even one hatnote on the page, I didn't think there would be immediate consensus to start putting even more... and that factored into my decision to revert.
• The specific hatnote implies that not only is the article not what some are looking for (for which the other uses links will work), but that there is a likelihood of confusion:"Not to be confused with Nastradamus."
  • I think someone looking for anything vaguely like Nas' album is not going to think that Nostradamus might be what they are looking for...
• The examples you cire, Yamucha and Yum cha are an isolated pair of confusable articles with no related disambiguation page (and really, with just two articles using two distinct names, that's fine) - the hatnotes are the sole disambiguation needed.
• the other two are pairs of disambiguation pages, where hatnotes and disambiguation links are basically free to flourish.
• I would draw your attention to more similar cases where there is a dominant topic with a subordinate disambiguation page, like MP3 or Monk.
• Or for that matter, the Nas article itself... which would only be hurt by adding a series of WP:POINT hatnotes on top:
  • Not to be confused with Naas, a town in Ireland. Not to be confused with Naval air station. and so on.
  • for me, personally, Nas means network attached storage, and clearly Nas does not cover that... so I go to the dab page.

Anyway, as i noted, I have added Nastradamus to the Nostradamus (disambiguation) page as another possible misspelling. I have no objection to moving up to a hatnote on the disambiguation page, but I don't think that is really necessary or would improve things. I do not see a good reason to include it and only it as a hatnote to Nostradamus... I think a person looking for the album will be able to follow to the disambiguation page. Thoughts? --Marcinjeske (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Disagreed. "Nostradamus" redirects to this article, not Nostradamus (disambiguation). I'm neutral on also having "Nastradamus" at the dab, though would prefer it in the "See also" location there. Anyway, I still think it's a pretty confusable term so why not go for the hat? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

So yes, Nostradamus directs to this article (no redirect involved).. meaning people probably end up at Nostradamus for the main meaning (the guy), or one of the (by my count) 5 secondary dab meanings, or the 1-2 possible misspellings... or something else. is the album Nastradamus that much more ambiguous or prominent than the other 6 articles that it needs it's own dab note? They shouldn't all get a hatnote... what makes the Nas album's case stronger? If it helps, Lord Sesshomaru, I think BLEACH and Bleach should dab link to each other in addition to the Bleach (disambiguation) page --Marcinjeske (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What makes the Nas case stronger? The very identical spelling of course: Nostradamus VS. Nastradamus. I also applied hats at Belzi and Belzig. I'm trying to find similar examples, how about Bill the Cat and Billy the Cat? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

How can almost identical spelling (Nastradamus) be a stronger case than identical spelling (say, Nostradamus (album)? The two examples you cite do not have existing disambiguation pages.. they are just pairs of similarly named sites, where mutual hatnotes do make sense as ... there is not dab page.

The potential for confusion would generally be less when there is even a slight difference in spelling. Bizzaria Bizzare is the best example I can find... hmmm.. try seeing how you would want Roster and Rooster... seems like whoever made the "For the Sydney Roosters rugby league team , see Sydney Roosters." hatnote would support your position. (for the record, there are three sports teams and one band named "Roosters") --Marcinjeske (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, think I'm starting to understand your argument. Articles which link to a disambiguation page should not have {{Distinguish}}? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I hope I tucked a "generally" in there somewhere... but yes... I would say that if there is article A already linking to an A (disambiguation) page, then do not add any further name-based disambiguation UNLESS:

1. One of the disambiguated articles (besides A itself) is a much more prominent meaning of the term than the other disambiguated articles. I think this is the case for Apple and Bleach.
2. One of the terms is close both in spelling and in meaning, so that if it were not noted specifically, the reader could think the current article discusses it. That's the kind of situation that the Distinguish template is for.

An example is French Guiana (ignoring for the moment that the dab page is for a different abbrev.) where there are three countries (close meaning) with very similar names (close spelling). Another good example is New York, which has a dab page (two in fact), but also highlights potential confusion with New York City since both the names and the types (subnational geopolitical divisions). In this specific case, I do not see that the Nas Album sense of the word is significantly more prominent than any of the other non-ancient-seer meanings, nor is there likelihood that looking for a rap album, a reader will read the Nostradamus page and say... oh yeah, this must be it.

Keep in mind that disambiguation notes are not the only claimants of hatnote space... we have:

• because of redirects based on meaning, the possibility of multiple disambiguation page links. See Rapid transit and Happiness.
• related topic notes: Rapid transit - This article discusses grade-separated rail transport. See also bus rapid transit and rapid transit (disambiguation).
• Wikipedia selfref: Copyright - For Wikipedia policy about copyright issues, see Wikipedia:Copyrights
• Cooperation?: List of Soldier's Medal recipients For Wikipedian collaboration on this topic, see the Military history WikiProject (ewww. that is an unusual article).

and so on,,, If you still feel like it is needed after this discussion, feel free... I won't revert... but I would be willing to bet that someone else would come along soon and make similar objections. --Marcinjeske (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Point understood. Thanks for everything. It was a pleasure having this conversation with you ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbers disparity

I don't know which is correct [in The Prophecies], but 941 quatrains - made of 9 x 100 + 1 x 42 = 942? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.95.71 (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says 'This version contains one unrhymed and 941 rhymed quatrains, grouped into nine sets of 100 and one of 42, called "Centuries"' - i.e. 1 + 941 = (9 x 100) + 42 = 942. (It doesn't say, without a comma, 'This version contains one unrhymed and 941 rhymed quatrains grouped into nine sets of 100 and one of 42, called "Centuries") That, as you say, makes 942 - and is correct. --PL (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Category "French Jews"

Are we sure that should be there? After all his parent relinquised being a Jew and took on Catholiscism (sp), that would make him, not a Jew, Ill remove it. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 01:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

His secretary implied that he was not a Jew. But, commentators contend his credibility, while at the same time using what they see fit -- he knew him in the later part of his life. I see no instances of him engaged in traditions, commenting upon them, acting upon them or actually mentioning them. Many ( today) believed since 'Prophets', the term , was exclusively associated with Hebrews, therefore associated him more resoundingly to Judaism. But Laurens ( Laurents) Videl called him a prophet ( and a 'new' astrologer) opposing Nostradamus public comments that he was a seer -- a seer is the same thing as a prophet ( without the Judaic implications) - one cannot use the term Prophet during the sixteenth centuries as a name for themselves without running into epistemic conflicts with the three nominal Prophets of history: Moses, Jesus and Mohammad. But a few prominent Nostradamians intend that Nostradamus could run around claiming prophecies or astrologies without reactions -- this is not the case. Nostradamus' work was seen as a more superior and academically inclined choice of predictions -- in that no one could understand his verses that is -- therefore he did not get into trouble as others had did -- or the eventual crack-down beginning ' around' the 1600s ( all over Europe) of self claimed prophets, astrolgers who used mundane/judical methodologies. There is ample evidence Nostradamus disassociated himself with Jews. Even most Jews tend to return to their roots, but not Nostradamus. Maybe it does explain his secretary's sentiments?

I myself would like to see multiple sources for proving he was a Jew. That may be asking too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.78 (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Chavigny in fact always insisted that he was a good Catholic! --PL (talk) 10:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

He was of Jewish origin. I think that's the best way to say it that would not provoke any discussion. There are various ways in use to define what is a Jew (by tribe, by birth, by faith). In his recipies one of the ingredients was pig fat and it was meant to be used as a cosmetic. If he had no problems with this, he's unlikely to have been an orthodox Jew. Another clue may be the dating of his prefaces etcetera, if there is one sabbath among those dates, or none at all, this would also provide information about his alleged Jewish faith. I haven't done such a research myself, most of my attention is aimed at comparing his quatrains with eventsMelambdalguq (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"in terms of"

Please, anyone who edits this page, do not use "in terms of" -- it is meaningless. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Music

Congratulations PL on a successful prediction that something big would happen in the world in 2001, based upon the May 2000 alignment reading in your book “Nostradamus and Beyond:" (1999). I did not hear of any astrologer predicting anything big for the world prior to 2001? Do you feel like an astrologer or prophet?

Not really, but thank you for noticing!

A question. Did Nostradamus mention anything about music in all of his writings or letters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.91 (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Not much. Ony two references to the word in his Prophecies, mentioning a court musician at X.28 and the sound of lutes and cymbals at a religious ceremony at X.41. --PL (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Site Sources -- heading change.

Here, corrected it. Thank you for being so nice about it! That site is a nice concept too, but the resolution is crappy. Absolutely no one can read those texts at that resolution or from the scan machine used. Some pages do not have all the script in them, pages folded, un-flattened -- did not fit into the scan, etc.. So what use does it have for the public? Absolutely none --maybe identifying only in the large print! No, the edition I have, and I'd looked, is not there. I understand that one can purchase materials, and I had emailed twice with an inquiry to that site, and received no response. All I had asked for was the full price (it was not stated), time period, and if one will get the red copyright script so blurry over the text photos --out. So I forge ahead, and I can handle things myself. Since I had used the correct email and was cordial, I figure it is a nice piece of propaganda site by this no response. A Claim,' go look at the originals,(Article) than one cannot read them, even a modern computer with standard industry resolution, and voila! No use at all.

However, it is good for identifying purposes -- in the larger print title sections. It looks a-like -- from that site:

'1568-014 Nostradamus, Les Propheties, Seve - like Dresden 530.1 original.' But the cite is confusing. It is in the "http://www.propheties.it/bibliotheque/1568-1599/index.html" section, and not in the correct section. You have to be wary of these stupid Americans, they will think of it to having been published before 1605. They will likely not read the fine print, or even less understand it. Maybe this does apply to your article.

In the up till 1567 cataloged area, a Pierre Rigaud is promoted ((1566-002 Nostradamus, Les Propheties, Pierre Rigaud )) ( even up till C. 10). ref. BENAZRA Pag 299; CHOMARAT 82; RUZO 84. It gives the sense that is a superior version to such things as a 1568 version, which is on the next category up in dates. (ref. 1539-1567; http://www.propheties.it/bibliotheque/1539-1567/index.html; Internet).

In fact, X. LXXII is actually the same punctuation and script as this 1605 version in LA. Yet, you claim that the original was not published until 1568 and does not contain the punctuation of the last word in line 2, which you wrote with great contention to its interpretation in 1997. this LA book has 1568 written all over it, but I'm smart enough to understand it was not published then. This 'Pierre Rigaud ' has the date of 1566, but how was it published in 1566? This is where it is placed in the dating of this cataloger system. You see Americans are too stupid to notice aberrations such as this. So this does intend the article too. It is misleading, to say the least. These stupid Americans, such as I, the ones you are trying to reach -- well, you throw them into future confusion. is that your point?

Since this person has little idea of where they place their version(s), I might have to decline the group. And to add, 'most' of these are facsimiles, not books. Seve signed the book. Gave the date, and I read other Nostradamus works ( not yours) that made me familiar with what I should expect. I just posted a 'long' asking of ' if you had a way of knowing of an original N. book in LA? But I'm sure it was my fault. I must have confused you.

Alas, this discussion board is dedicated to discussing the article, not Nostradamus and his editions. May I suggest you apply to join the Nostradamus Research Group at NostradamusRG@yahoogroups.com, where not only I but other, more qualified archivists will no doubt be able to answer your questions? The Sixains and 'extras', plus 141 Presages drawn from the annual almanacs do first appear in the Seve edition of 1605, but other bits were added or changed in later editions still. The November 1557 edition is, I suspect, a pirated one. You can see the Seve edition for yourself (along with most of the others) here. --PL (talk) 08:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I put in a search at http://groups.yahoo.com/search?query=NostradamusRG, and yahoo came out with 'Sorry, no matches were found for 'NostradamusRG',' or 'NostradamusRG@yahoogroups.com'. However, I did find a French Group but it definitely was not under the description given. Never mind, I can take care of myself. I'm sure it exsists. I'm just not competant, or worthy for that group. Exscuse me.

My fault. Try this -- it works! --PL (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Re your other points above, were you to join the group I suggested, you might find out that there were several printings of the 1568 edition, and that in the original printings of X.72, line 2 has no apostrophe. You might also discover that the '1566' edition is an antedated 17th century fake. In addition, were you to try re-emailing Mario Gregorio for a higher resolution copy, you might find that he is back from holiday now! (You might also get prompt and more helpful replies if you were to put your questions and comments at the bottom of this list rather than at the top!) --PL (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I already knew all your points, and as I said, I was making a long-winded affirmation-question as if you had knowledge to originals, that did not appear in your NE (1977) list of these early editions. Apparently not. But it doesn't matter either. I had emailed that site twice, and between appx. 9 months difference. Since this time of ignoring, I have came across a wealth of N originals in high-def, and access. I have no need for those at the moment, I have almanacs, and originals in high definition, and access to original works of this time period. I do not need to go to a group and haggle over what edition appeared when, I have already read the bibliographies. I'm also not into interpretating, so this is another reason I have no need for that group. I'm more into reading Orance Finé, 'Science et estrologie au XVI siecle, et son horloge planetarie' (1544 (?)), in which I have access, and seeing if there are comprehensive works by Cyprian Leowitz to access his knowledge. Example, how was a meridian(s) calculated when there was no such systemization -- and outside of the ephemerides for each local with its sederial location.? How did these astrologers calculate logarithms, when calculus was not invented yet? -- so they could adjust the cusps with precision. I'm into reading Jocham de Fiore or Pierre d' Alley and how these two used the same knowledge about ages, and investigating. I already know the historiography of N.'s publishing, how to spot a forgery and this bores me. I'm not into trying to find out if he was like a "drunken telegram clerk." So I have no need to be within that group. I'm more interested in the speculation that Ptolemy’s 'Tetrabiblos' was barrowed knowledge ( as suspected, I think you call it plagiarism as you claim Nostradamus was one of these persons) and to search this out. I'm not waiting for any reply from you -- you may think so, but this is not the case. I have access to all I need, thank you. I 'd wanted a simple yes or no. But, I really do not need one or care now. I do not need your help, and I'm uninterested over arguments of interpretation from a group. Thank you. If this is not clear, and I hope it is, please no more insinuations -- I do not need a running thread. I'm finished here. I have more important things to take care of at the moment.. When I need help, I know not to come to you. I'm just a stupid American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.104.25 (talk) 02:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have tried to help. Purely for the benefit of others here, then, perhaps I should point out that the Nostradamus Research Group (see under External Links), is not about interpretation, and doesn't reckon to haggle over the dates of editions... --PL (talk) 09:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Julian and Gregorian birthdates

Just to clarify my recent reversion to the earlier text on this matter:

1. As the text and the academic reference note carefully explain, it is by no means certain that Nostradamus was born on the 14th of December Julian. The weight of contemporary evidence in fact suggests the 21st.

2. 14th of December Julian would in any case have been the 24th of December on the Gregorian calendar, not the 23rd as is suggested by Hogue and others, as any properly-consulted ephemeris will confirm.

3. Hogue may be a well-known populariser, but in no way can his Nostradamus: A Life and Myth be described as an academic source, let alone a reliable one (as the above demonstrates). Consequently it is not a source for this article. For possible reasons, see my User Page.

4. The 'troubadour kings' have nothing whatsoever to do with Nostradamus. This is an encyclopedia, not a holiday brochure. --PL (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Of course, as the Gregorian calendar was not implemented until after Nostradamus' death, this is really just an academic exercise. :) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not even an academic exercise, it's a pointless exercise. The Julian calendar was the only one in existence during Nostradamus's life (at least in Europe), and the Gregorian made no retrospective changes to it. Describing a date before 1582 as "14 December Julian" is unnecessary since the Julian was the only calendar it could possibly have been from. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Nevertheless, it is often done. --PL (talk) 11:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Page Requires More Views

This page requires more viewpoints and additions being an encyclopedia. I find from reading it that it has too much of a "skeptics" tone with unsubstantiated claims which are easily solved by this author himself, that being Nostradamus. Some of the page on this subject reads like the opinion of one single author and lacks an unbiased and rounded encyclopedic tone that befits such a well-known subject. Hope I can help with this. Eagle Eye 00:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The article is based exclusively on the sources listed, as any encyclopaedia article should be. There is no place in it for original research (see Wikipedia's rules), such as suggesting, independently of the sources, that Nostradamus was an astrologer (which he wasn't -- as his totally incompetent astrological work makes clear -- or he wouldn't have attacked them). You may have noticed that he is described as an 'astrological consultant' at the top of the article -- which, to judge by the sources, is about right.

Most of the reputable, peer-reviewed sources, as it happens, are somewhat skeptical -- not of Nostradamus, but of the countless popular interpretations of him, whether in print or on the Internet, most of which are based on almost total ignorance -- but that is the result of the specialists' having studied the texts and archives intensively. On the whole, the more intensively they have studied them, the more skeptical of 'received wisdom' they have become. But that is a result of knowledge, not of ignorance. The 'substantiations' are to be found in the sources listed and the items referred to by the footnotes. That's what they are for. There is no warrant for bringing in extra sources that are not consistent with the research supplied by the listed ones (you may care to refer to the analyses of some of them on my User Page), especially, as here, in the form of blatant bookspam. Suggesting that Nostradamus is encoded is nothing new -- but the problem is that no two alleged 'decodings' ever agree!

As for 'more viewpoints', please note that there is a specific section entitled 'Alternative views' towards the end of the article. --PL (talk) 11:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a question here: "alternative views" as opposed to what? Even the most skeptical of Nostradamus clearly admit he was an astrologer, and it is noted in the history of Nostradamus that he casted horoscopes for many of his clients, including the French royal family of the era, so I don't understand how you can say that he wasn't an astrologer, and then comment that his work was "totally incompetent" ~ which is based on what?Eagle Eye 22:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nostradamus wasn't an astrologer, even though that is 'a well-known fact' (as Terry Pratchett might put it). He clearly hadn't been trained, and was totally incompetent at it, as both the contemporary astrologer Laurens Videl and the modern Prof. Pierre Brind'Amour of Ottawa University (see Source List) demonstrated in intricate detail. Perhaps that is why he never called himself one (instead, he used the term astrophile, meaning 'star-lover', which is what it says on the plaque outside his house). Perhaps it is also why, in the last quatrain of his sixth Century, he specifically attacked the astrologers in no uncertain terms!

As for the horoscopes (which were nearly always wrong, especially in the case of Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria -- see Gruber's analysis), he usually asked his clients to provide their own birth charts, cast by reputable astrologers, and when forced to do his own on the basis of their already published tables, always made whole rafts of errors that have been carefully catalogued -- often placing planets in the wrong signs or houses, for example. He couldn't even calculate the Ascendant, or extrapolate from the published tables for his clients' place or time of birth... --PL (talk) 10:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, if you are aware of this subject, then you would surely know that Nostradamus was in fact an astrologer, also known as a astrophile, as is also indicated on the writing of his grave marker, which was written by his wife. In addition, the very quatrains of Nostradamus, including the prose of his own hand, says that he was indeed an astrologer, so I am confused as to where you would come out and state that Nostradamus was not one. It is a well-known fact that he was, not that he was not. In reading your entries on this subject, it appears as if you have certain strong opinions that run contrary to the widely accepted views of Nostradamus scholars. I have to remind you that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a forum for entering personal opinion in the guise of factual information.Eagle Eye 01:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs)

"The Academics"

The bits in the article about "the academics" seems odd, imprecise, and rather naive: It's unclear who these people are (James Randi was the only one about whom I could find much online, and he does not appear to be what I would call an academic: He doesn't appear either to have a Ph.D. or to be a faculty member at a university or fellow at a research institute.) or in what domains they are qualified; the references listed appear too be books, not peer-reviewed (e.g., journal or other academic) publications. In any case to say that "the academics made it clear ..." or that "the academics" did anything is ridiculous: The Academe is not so organised that it operates so as to make proclamations based on unanimous consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.139.44 (talk) 07:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Substitute 'the sources listed'? Several of them hold doctorates, two of them professorships.(See my User Page for some of the peer reviews of them.) --PL (talk) 10:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Like Desiderius Erasmus or Martin Luther they despised these top academics in their societies ( Scotus, Occam..etc..) -- this from their plethora of consternation to them in their writings. Yet, there are some Ph. Ds and professors that have been writing pro-prophecy views about Nostradamus. They are not listed here, though. They believe in some linguistic synchronicity, and spiritual revelation, a gift they believed Nostradamus possessed. Most sources here ( except Ian. W.) believe that Nostradamus measly made stuff up and looked to the past (sources) and projected them into the future. Even St. Augustine somewhat despised the academics of his day. Some of the great historical names ended up despising top academicians of their day too. Yet, most of these big names in history that despised normative academia of their day wrote heavily on mysticism. Many believe Martin Luther did not write on mysticism, but his 'Bondage of the Will' (1524), a part of the back-and-forth with Erasmus' on free-will and predestination, intended his works are heavily ingested with these mysteries. Academicians do not like to communicate they do not know something. It may not be their fault, it is institutionalized. They feel like they are in a prison (of knowledge). They like to say pay-me the money -- I know it all. That is the only way to get friends to like them.

Read "Stultitiae Laus" ( 1511, pub. by Tyndale, England, deda., T. More), so one can understand the 'folly' of most academicians. Even François Rabelais will tell you the same in "Gargantua & Pantagruel" if you can hold in your stomach from such hysterical laughter. Don't worry too much, the article is fine. Nostradamus looked to the past (sources) to try to tell something of what will come in the future. There still remains some mysteries. We are becoming aware that many others --long before Nostradamus-- were engaging in this practice, and even some prominent historical & revered individuals. This places doubt in dismissing Nostradamus as a novelty-fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.67.44.84 (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, the article is based on the academically based, peer-reviewed sources listed, which broadly reach comparable conclusions. Alternative views are listed in the section so titled.--PL (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

ZOMG END OF THE WORLD

I'm getting lots of mixed "perceptions" of Nostradamus's "predictions" from different sources. Despite the fact that I don't believe in them, I've seen on a documentary that he predicted the end of the world in 3797 AD, then I saw on another show he predicted the end of the world in 1999 AD, then I see in commercials for History Channel's "ARMAGEDDON WEEK (BE AFRAID BOOGITY BOOGY BOO!)" that he predicted the end of the world in 2012 AD.

So what the fuck? Did he really predict an end to the world, or did they just reach the end of the last surviving book of his and decide to randomly mix words around (a practice practiced by many Nostradamus proponents, properly labeled as "bullshit") to get whatever numbers they want? Or just shock value? AndarielHalo (talk) 15:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No, he never mentions the end of the world in his Prophecies, though clearly he expected it fairly soon. Fashionable dates at the time were 1800 or 2242. The 1999 prophecy says nothing whatever about the end of the world, nor even (as a lot of people imagine) a 'King of Terror'. 3797 was when he said his prophecies would run out -- but as he wrote it in 1555, I'll leave you to do the math. 2012 has nothing to do with Nostradamus: it is merely the end of the current sub-cycle on the Mayan calendar, which actually goes on for trillions of years. (And this board has nothing to do with discussing Nostradamus -- only the article!)

Meanwhile, as for the History Channel, in the light of long experience with them I suggest you substitute the title 'Mystery Channel’. ;) --PL (talk) 16:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I watched the HC program on 2012, it did not say Nostradamus believed the world would end in the year 2012. In fact, there were only little clips relating to Nostradamus. It was a compendium of world mysteries all pointing to some type of epochal change with the Sun aligning to the center of our galaxy on 21 dec 2012. The connection was a change, ' of the likes of Cro-magnum predominance and the end of Neanderthal -- as a shift.' The compendium theme is likened to understanding there are about 20 different individuals that prophesied the French Revolution from the 15 th -16 th centuries.

While prophets use intuition as well as whatever sources on nature and political movements they can get there hands on -- normal scientists also use these cyclical understandings to explain earth's history.

See 'Kanon der Erdbestrahlung und seine Anwendung auf das Eiszeitenproblem.' 1941, Royal Serbian Academy.

While mathematically the all the known planets including the moon do not repeat in exact config-alignment(s) -- estimating at 1 + 45' zeros after the one, it is impossible that history can exactly repeat itself ( if one believes in that astrological significance).

The HC program on 2012 was boring, meant to communicate 'mysteries' which are just that, and according to the method Nostradamus' had adopted others had looked back too -- to ~ 26,000 years ago to try to understand the change that will occur after 2012 -- a new scientific paradigm we may not understand when it happens. No end of the world on HC 2012, but may be a purging at future intervals.

However, this isn't the place for pursuing this discussion! --PL (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I just figured people assume he's a DOOMSAYER and that should be clarified here. Since he clearly isn't according to you all, it should be clearly stated. AndarielHalo (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, he was -- most of the time -- but not in any general sense. Consequently the article doesn't suggest anything of the kind. Nevertheless, brief statement duly added! --PL (talk) 09:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

brown text

Please explain to me the brown text. What is its purpose? What is it supposed to tell the reader? Thanks, Kingturtle (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Please explain all of your fact tags, some of which are at best misguided.

We went through the brown text bit when being vetted for FA status. See the archives. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I can find nothing about brown in the Nostradamus archives. Are there FA archives that are separate? Kingturtle (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

They probably are, it'd be in the FAR for the article. I'm still not seeing what the big deal is. Brown presents no problems for folks who are colour-blind which is generally given as the reason for not using certain colors, especially red. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not so much of a problem as a curiosity. What is the intention of the brown text? Kingturtle (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Think antique. Or the color most black inks degrade to. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

embedded external links

If this edit is meant to show a reference, please use the formats listed at Wikipedia:Citation templates. You should not add a descriptive title to an embedded HTML link within an article (that's from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)). Embedding external links should only occur under the External links heading. Kingturtle (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not must not, and see above. The embedded links passed the FAR. Why you are choosing to disrupt a stable article, and why you are doing so to an FA without prior discussion is beyond me. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not disrupting the article. I am trying to improve the article. I read the article for the first time today, and found it needed some work. Even Featured Articles need work. No article is ever finished.

As for the embedded external links, they are being misused. That usage is meant for the External links section. The reasoning behind this is embedded external links used in this misused way take the reader away from Wikipedia, and could take that reader on a reading and link-clicking adventure that takes them away from Wikipedia for a long time. We want people to stick around. A blue link is an offer to a reader to explore Wikipedia further; a red link is an offer to a reader to make an article, to stick around, to help. The embedded external links in this article should be converted to references. No bones about it. Kingturtle (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If you want to convert them to refs feel free to do so. In fact, please do -- my eyes are a bit crappy and I'd be happy if you took the initiative.

As for being disruptive, perhaps my wording was too strong, but you certainly seem to have overused the fact tags (and this from a person who had placed quite a few in different articles).

How about we work together on this? I think I may have gotten so jaded by the vandalism and silliness we see on this page that I may have over-reacted. Sorry. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 20:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I am more than happy to work together on this. Again, I meant no harm. Some time this weekend I will give those external links their proper conversion. And I can make a list in this talk page of the parts I think need better source material. Be patient, though. On the weekends I tend to work less on Wikipedia so I can spend more time with my wife. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. I understand the weekend thing -- I feel the same. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why a format that seems to have satisfied everybody for years is suddenly deemed unsatisfactory... --PL (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, really. In any case PL, do we have cites for the remaining fact tags? I know that all of the statements so tagged are true and verifiable, but you might be more up-to-speed on the specific cites. I think most are from Lemesurier, but I'm not sure which book and my eyes are too tired to look through them! •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I've converted the embedded external links into internal links and put the URLs in question in citations at the end of each sentence involved. The internal links are red links. It would be nice to have those turned into articles eventually. I'm not married to the citation format that I used, and I am willing to change the citation format to something else if you like. Also, it might not be best to have the citations, and maybe we should have a section in the External links section that provides links to each publication. I am definitely open to ideas. Kingturtle (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't work so far, which is why I've reverted it pending agreement (your work isn't wasted, of course -- we can always go back to it). It really is no use filling an article with red non-links! 'A section in the External links section that provides links to each publication' would simply truncate the information and make it less readily accessible to readers -- which is hardly the function of Wikipedia.--PL (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't fill the article with red links. I added four red links to an article that already had five red links. Red links in articles are allowed, and even encouraged; whereas embedded external links are bad practice. I don't mind if my proposed red links are simply made non-linked text, but embedded external links are really out of the question here (see my arguments above).

The function of Wikipedia is not (as you imply) to make outside information readily available. Quite differently, the function is to serve as an encyclopedia. Embedded external links take users away from Wikipedia while red links keep users here and encourage growth. From Wikipedia:Red link: "Good red links help Wikipedia — they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished." Just food for thought, Kingturtle (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, almost doubling the number of red links means almost doubling the number of occasions when readers are going to feel frustrated -- and even the original five (more than enough, in my view) were ones that somebody had added, not ones that were there originally. IMO they should be removed. If you feel otherwise, the answer is in your own hands. You have the links, you write the articles! --PL (talk) 09:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No one else has added an opinion to this in over a week. I was hoping to hear some other points of view. I am willing not to red ink the titles, but the embedded external links really must go. Thoughts? Kingturtle (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

PL is suggesting “you write the articles,” whereas you are only suggesting taking out the hot-links (external) and maybe footnoting them in the external link section of the main page. That is fine by me, but this dispute is with him.

So Kingturtle, you brought up some critical Wiki factors that I believe PL could not challenge. This explains his response to you to “write the articles”— he, knowing you cannot.

Yes I have a response I composed last week and it is lengthy, yet as of now I have no solution for embedded links. “Traité des fardemens et confitures” is poorly formatted page in regards to the analysis HTLM code, while I have no dispute of the analysis itself. I’m sure it is copyrighted, but it would need to be and according to Wiki’s standards to be created as an individual page. However, the scans of the prime source section of the external page would be unattainable. There has been rather a more in-depth work on this particular book by previous authors not associated with that website. So it would probably be difficult to make that a Wiki page, because further writing would be needed to make it presentable to the public. The embedded link takes one to a place where further research can be attained, which is not what Wiki is supposed to be about in regards to embedded article-links.

I also see where Kingturtle’s citation suggestions are needed too. I have a few more. In addition, some comments supporting the original author’s non-citation were certainly common knowledge. I would argue there is no citation needed in these places. This is in my response I have not posted. Some of these ‘citation needed’ suggestions should be taken off.

Most of my suggestions are on sourcing, correct citations as too attribution (not there at this moment), and academic language – which are all basically intertwined. It is more complex in compartmental problems that I see too, in the main article. I have no dispute with the research. I do see in the Alternative Views, insertions contained within parts of Nostradamus' ‘historiography. ‘I tend to take issue with this because it is rather a convoluted section of the page. I think it could be vastly improved. Facts should remain the same, and with no added length to the entire article should be proposed. Historiography is all about changing views. Alternative Views are just that and are quite dated. This section and some repeated facts in these other sections can be tightened up and unified. There is redundancy throughout the article. This limits the academic aspirations of Wiki, I intend. However, I have never edited the front page or have had a need too. Aristeuein (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If I have to write the articles as part of the bargain, I'll do it. They'll only be stubs though, as this topic is not my expertise. Kingturtle (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Kingturtle, you could just create these pages and someone could fill them in at a later date. That would be fine. The process of filling in these pages would not be too hard, as long as it is cited correctly according to Wiki standards -- the person who has done the research is correctly cited, and thusly is of academic quality. However, some time to get at it should be allowed.

Some embedded link issues before I go off to work:

“Almanacs” under section “Works” is a broken link anyway at the moment. I say just make it text and unlink the broken link.

“Orus Apollo ” is also under section “Works” and is copyrighted to PL. Although, the historiography of this work is not represented at this link – therefore just the Nostradamus French is on the left and on the right is PL’s English trans. It doesn’t appear PL did any research for the historiography on this subject, although external links at the bottom of the front page do give some website(s) that do have some research on this topic. However, a stub would be fine as of now, and at a later date a filling in I supposed with some correct citations and/or permission(s) would be acceptable -- some later time when someone gets around to it.Aristeuein (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I support Kingturtle's suggestion that he be the one who provides stubs, given that he is the one who is raising the complaint. He can do so on the basis of the links already supplied. Somebody else (and I fear I know who among others that would have to be!) will then no doubt feel impelled to adjust them and amplify them correctly. When he has done it, he may care to list for us which stubs have been created, so that we can check them. Most of the academic background is of course to be found in the works already listed under 'Sources'. --PL (talk) 11:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, but beware of the deletionists who pounce on newly created articles/stubs.

Also, placing links to the stubs on this talk page would be of assistance. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Or I could just remove the embedded links and black ink the titles. Kingturtle (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be preferable if you don't feel up to doing the stubs, but wouldn't help inform people. In fact, they'd be left rather at a loss, wouldn't they?--PL (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has two main goals, as far as I can see. One is to provide quality content to readers and the other is to encourage newcomers to participate in the creation of content. Redlinks are an invitation for newcomers to participate. They are also an invitation to people with a particular expertise to dive in. I'd prefer the red links, but in the interest of compromise, I'll agree to black ink. Kingturtle (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer the red links, too, as long as they come with stubs... Otherwise, stet?--PL (talk) 11:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

If they come with stubs, then they're not redlinks. Kingturtle (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite. But they will be until they do! ;) --PL (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Black-inking it is not acceptable to me. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Nor to me. Wikipendantry should not be allowed to make articles less informative! --PL (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought we had reached a consensus. In any case, I went ahead and created Orus Apollo, and turned it into a blue link on this article. As I have no expertise in this subject can you please fix any mistakes I made on Orus Apollo? Thanks. Kingturtle (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. I'll work on more through the week. Kingturtle (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. See what you think. --PL (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done. I re-added the Leoni citation. If it isn't reliable, then by all means remove it. Kingturtle (talk) 17:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Leoni is old hat (1961), and had never seen the manuscript (you may care to take a look at the reviews on my User Page). Three more stubs duly updated. --PL (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Re "as French manuscript No. 2594" -- are the manuscripts numbered by original language? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently (according to Allemand). --PL (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And I thought I was anal with my CD/record collection.  ;) •Jim62sch•^dissera! 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

request for semi-protection

This article has experience significant IP/anon vandalism over the past two weeks and needs to be semi-protected. How do we request that? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Here Until It Sleeps 22:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks much: I tried to look it up and defaulted to WP:AN/I, which worked, but was the wrong place. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, until "what" sleeps? •Jim62sch•^dissera! 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The article has survived more or less as it is for several years now, which suggests that it has reached a more or less 'stable' form. But there's been a huge amount of vandalism recently, and it's growing. So my feeling is that it now needs semi-permanent protection, at least until somebody comes up here with some half rational suggestion for significant changes. Any accumulated minor niggles can be dealt with at the same time. --PL (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection seems to have lapsed, and the vandalism has consequently resumed. Renew protection, please? --PL (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No

Request for further protection

Vandalism has now increased to intolerable levels. Could protection be renewed, please? --PL (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversy and criticism?

I think a section titled "Controversy and criticism" should be put in. ChesterTheWorm (talk) 03:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC) ChesterTheWorm

Trouble is, controversy and criticism over Nostradamus are endless! Don't 'Interpretations' and 'Alternative Views' more or less cover it? --PL (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the controversy and criticism of the article could be mentioned perhaps, as Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia which gives facts without opinion. The Nostradamus article on Wikipedia however would quite possibly only be one or two short paragraphs long if one was to remove all the opinionated bile written on there currently. Quite simply, an awful, awful article. I am not necessarily a believer of everything (or even anything) Nostradamus wrote, but to set out what is supposed to be a collection of facts and yet totally discredit everything he has written and question any known details about things he may have predicted means that this cannot be considered worthy of what should be a true, neutral and unbiased collection of information about the subject.

Controversy? The article in question is utter rubbish in the way it has been written and does not belong. Criticism? See above.

Very good spelling and punctuation however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonaldo75 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to list specifically any 'opionated bile' in the article -- i.e. any emotionally loaded statements unsupported by the reputable sources listed (have you bothered to read them, I wonder?) -- since anything of the kind should of course be removed under the terms of Wikipedia. What precisely is it that Nostradamus wrote that the article discredits, rather than merely reporting what the sources say it says? What details are 'known' about what he predicted that the article unreasonably denies in defiance of the sources? How does your judgement that the 'awful, awful article' is 'utter rubbish' square with the fact the piece has been officially rated as a featured article and as 'one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community' (see general headers above)? How much do you actually know about Nostradamus to judge the article by in the first place, and where did you learn it from? --PL (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. There is much too much opinion in this Nostradamus article, and not enough encyclopedic information. I'm not saying that PL doesn't have his own perspective, but, it comes at the expense of the knowledge of others as well. Perhaps if PL took a bit of a vacation it might help him to see that he is not the only one deemed "qualified" to edit this article without all the opinion. There is much too much of this, and surely not enough encyclopedic knowledge of this subject. I've many students who've complained about this Wiki article compared with the many good texts on Nostradamus. Eagle Eye 16:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

As indicated, please give examples of where the article expresses opinions, rather than stating the encyclopaedic facts established by the reputable sources listed (PL is by no means the only person who has edited the article in the light of the latter). While it is understandable that some people should be upset by the facts about Nostradamus, rather than the things that they would like to believe about him on the basis of lurid popular books by people who don't know either the subject or the language that Nostradamus wrote in, Wikipedia is rightly insistent that the facts must take priority. I am sorry if they seem rather unglamorous. I wonder if any of the 'many good texts on Nostradamus' to which you refer are among those reviewed on my User Page? --PL (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Eagle Eye: by "too much opinion" do you mean "too much opinion that disagrees with my opinion"? Additionally, your snarky point re PLwas both unecessary and incorrect. Nonetheless I shall remind (or perhaps inform you) that PL reads middle French,the language in which Nosty wrote. Do you? (Yes, I do, should you wish to ask, although not as well as PL does). In any case, an understanding of Nosty's language is required if one is do any real scholarship on Nosty. Yes, yes, it would be nice to believe that Nosty predicted all sorts of wonderful and horrible things, and yet, when one reads his "prophesies" in the original, and reads his various sources in their original tongues, one quickly realises that he predicted nothing. That various charlatans have made post-dictions loosely based on Nosty's quatrains is true, but irrelevant to what Nosty actually did. I could bore you with a discussion of bibliomancy, and a discussion of the belief that what happened before under certain astrological conditions would recur again when the same conditions were met and so on, but I'll pass on that for now.

Additionally, everything the article states -- probably many of the things you see as "opinions" are rigourously sourced. In other words, if you have specifics to discuss, and can back them up without relying upon the ruminations of charlatans, feel free to share. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 18:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course you would have your own "opinion" Jim62sch, and that's fine, but however, one is not entitled to one's own facts. There is plenty of fact on this subject, including a wide biblography. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and when entering information on this subject, opinions should be kept to a bare minimum.Eagle Eye 01:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by EagleEye (talk • contribs)

Absolutely right. So please indicate where the article expresses personal opinions rather than the facts established by the reputable sources (and not by the obviously disreputable ones that constitute most of the 'wide bibliography'). Once again, to help sort out the wheat from the chaff you may care to consult the reviews on my User page, plus the two main published bibliographies listed under Sources (i.e. Chomarat & Laroche, and Benazra). --PL (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisement, mon vieux. I have an opinion on Nosty, but it's not related to any work I've done on the article. One has to do a bit more than read the article or watch the History Channel shows to actually comprehend. It also helps if one knows Francais Moyen. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

mothman whitenoise

my predictions about historical predictions include: italy, mariner, over. haiti, serpent & the rainbow, similar transmissions silver surfer web support. is there a place to discuss actual occurances today, concerning prophesy interpretation? nessie lochs75.251.73.78 (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

But unfortunately this board is here to discuss the article Nostradamus, and not even his predictions! You could try alt.prophecies.nostradamus -- but I wouldn't recommend it! --PL (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Century IV.XXXII - the meaning of Pánta, Chiona, Philôn?

I have recently been reading Erika Chetham's The Final Prophecies. In Century 4, quatrain 32, the last line reads, "Le Pánta chiona philôn mis fort arriere", translated as "Pánta, chiona, philôn, put far behind". The author asserts that the three words mean "all things in common among friends" in Greek. Is this correct? 78.148.3.71 (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently so -- though this board is meant to be about the article, rather than Nostradamus. I'd caution about taking dear Erika too seriously, though. Try other titles in the 'Sources' section instead? For discussion about Nostradamus, try one of the forums listed under 'External links'? --PL (talk) 08:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems I was under a slight misapprehension about the "no discussion" rule; I thought that general questions and answers were allowed as long as they were factual, not opinion-related. So, thank you for putting me right on that one, PL. For the record, I don't have a very high opinion of Ms Cheetham's book - it's riddled with typos and almost completely unreferenced. Cartwright27 (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely! For the actual texts, see the main facsimile site referenced: for English versions, see the main translation site and compare with others. For 'interpretations', best lie down quietly in a dark room! --PL (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV introduction

I don't care much for Nostradamus, but why is the intro tearing apart his works? Isn't the intro supposed to be about the person and what they are known for and not about denigrating those accomplishments? The entire intro is about The Prophecies and not about the person who wrote them. Isn't there a way to write an intro that's neutral without being dismissive? Most academics agree that this is probably the worst intro ever written in the history of humanity. Is that last sentence something you'd like to hear written about whomever wrote that intro? Surely, there's a better way. Take ANYONE, you can write negative stuff about ANY of their accomplishments. That doesn't go in the intro though. Intro's are simply about stating what they are best known for and what they have done. If those things are good or bad is subjective and should be left out of an intro. It shows a lack of respect to puts negative commentary in the worst possible spot. MAYBE saying that they are controversial would be passable, but even then it's critiquing the work. There's no reason to go into the arguments in the intro.

Take a look at ANYONE's intro. They are RESPECTFUL. Even Stanton Friedman's intro is short, to the point and doesn't go into a debate about the Roswell incident. It does mention that he's known for it though. That's enough. Take Chang. He only won ONE tournament. But it's not worded that way. I could go on and on. Heck, Hitler has a more respectful intro than this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.236.178 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The current introduction contains six sentences, all of which are purely factual and non-subjective. The first four of them are perfectly respectful and even positive. Naturally, though, they refer mainly to Nostradamus's work, since that, and not anything else, is what he is known for. The last two sentences simply report what the listed sources say about his work. If they appear negative, this is because that is what the sources report.

If you think there are more positive things to say on the basis of the sources, it is for you to say so and to edit the article accordingly, provided that you have actually read and studied the sources. Be aware, though, that the article is a Featured Article, and has been recognized by Wikipedia as one of the best of its kind! --PL (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Why put 9/11 in the interpretations? That quatrain is proven fake and dated a hundred years after he died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.185.110 (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what the text of the article and of Nostradamus in popular culture says? --PL (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if anyone's interpreted the "1999 and seven months" quatrain to mean the 9/11 attacks (which occurred a couple of years later in 2001). September does derive its etymology from "seventh month" (I think), and there were infamous terror attacks in London on July 7, 2005, a few years later (and July is the seventh month nowadays), but I don't recall anything happening in July or September 1999. However, the date notwithstanding, the rest of the quatrain seems to fit somewhat well (if you count terrorists on airplanes as a "king" and Al-Qaeda as the "Mongols" or "Angoulemois" (spelling?). 192.12.88.7 (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

JFK Jr. was killed in an airplane crash in July 1999, but I don't see how that could connect to the rest of the quatrain. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sure! It's been interpreted (repeatedly) to mean that and virtually everything else! But, as you've observed, it doesn't actually fit any of them, not even the death of JFK junior. That's because Roy doesn't mean 'airborne terrorist' and Angolmois doesn't mean anything other than Angoumois, a well-known region of France. To find out what they do mean, you may care to refer to this most recent translation, which also offers you a likely source. But then this board is supposed to be for discussing the article, not Nostradamus... --PL (talk) 10:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed link to 'Complete Works' site

This site is admittedly attractively presented, but alas:

• The works presented are very far from complete, omitting as they do all the Almanachs with their 3668 known prophecies, plus all the other works listed in the article.
• Even the version of 'The Prophecies' offered omits the important prefatory letter to King Henri II mentioned in the article.
• The French texts are not, as they should be, the original ones of 1555, 1557 and 1568 (printings 'A' or 'X') mentioned in the article.
• From Century III onwards, the translations offered are sheer plagiarisations of Leoni's copyright 'Nostradamus and His Prophecies' (Bell, New York, 1982), which is not mentioned in the article for very good reasons.

Before the site can reasonably be linked, it therefore needs to be much more thoroughly researched (using the links and works listed), possibly retitled, made legal, and generally made consistent with the article and its sources. --PL (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

bull crap

wikipedia should be demolshed from the www. all content is false opinion sites should not exist. If i wanted to hear made up stories id ask my 8 year old son how it went down —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.35.254.5 (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)