Talk:Nostradamus/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

List of prophecies

I came here to see the confirmed list of Nostradamus prophecies and I couldn't find anything! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.36.211.224 (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you mean what he predicted, nobody knows. If you mean a straight list of texts, there are 7280 of them. If you mean the 942 texts usually referred to as his Prophecies, you can find them in full by following the external links. --PL (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Also depends on what the anon meant by "confirmed". •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting dates

Can someone please sort out the conflict in dates of the photos of N's birthplace. If the upper photo was taken on 2006, as is claimed, then the bottom one can not possibly be the reconstruction after and earthquake of 1909. Should that read 2009? Or what? Amandajm (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, both images are claimed by the same person, and dated 1997. However, the photographer claims to have made the earlier image and has copywrited it as 2006. How can he have made it, unless he is the oldest man alive and did it with his box brownie at the age of ten? Can someone get to the bottom of this? Amandajm (talk) 01:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Both photos are mine. The upper one is of his original birthplace in Saint-Remy. The bottom one is of his later house in Salon-de-Provence, as rebuilt after the 1909 earthquake and still in existence today. The article indicates as much. The two towns are some twenty miles apart. --PL (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks for explaining! Amandajm (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I should have explained, BTW, that the rebuilding didn't take place until the 1980s. The place was in ruins (and dangerous) until then. Nevertheless I met a woman who used to play in there as a child. They filled in the former cellar. Almost nothing of the original remains, and it looks to me as if they took considerable liberties with it! --PL (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Nostra Damus

Nostra Damus spelled differently among few to many, just like his predictions. From the beginning he had predicted many afew, for example the time line a.d meaning after and b.c. meaning before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.245.84 (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

This board is meant to be about the article, not Nostradamus. However, we don't actually know how Nostradamus spelt his stuff, as the spellings are nearly all the printers' -- and he never mentioned either BC or AD. We do know, however, that he spelt his name 'Nostradamus' from 1550, and either 'Nostredame' or 'Nostradame' before it. --PL (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

'Known facts'?

The timelines a.d. and b.c. are very important. Nostra Damus predicted wars, people of higher rules and things like the 7th signs or the 7th sign. The sixth sense, would also be somewhere along the timelines, our guidelines of the medical industry. Golden rings and the number 5 hit the money. You may think this is superstitious, but lest, know it is another known fact that Nostra Damus predicted.

Nostradamus said nothing whatever about 'the 7th signs or the 7th sign', nor about the meaning of the number 5. If you (whoever you are) wish to refer to 'known facts that Nostra Damus predicted', please consult the facsimiles available via the external links and give reputable sources for your claims. --PL (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice! •Jim62sch•^dissera! 02:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ye gods, Jim. Where've ya been? I was beginning to fear the worst. You've been sorely missed both here and in the NRG (I never thought we'd be able to preserve this article against the nutters for so long!). See you there, hopefully! Let me know if you find you need to rejoin. --PL (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me while I lol at your superstitious comment. lol 98.168.192.162 (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Angolmois?

Angolmois redirects here, but the article doesn’t mention it. —76.110.174.187 (talk) 03:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No reason why it should. The name (nowadays Angoumois) is only mentioned once, and has no particular significance. Cancel redirection or redirect to Angoumois instead? --PL (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Finally got around to it...probably not correctly...but. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 21:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nostradamus at Wikisource

A while back I put a note at the discussion page of Nostradamus's Prophecies at Wikisource, which seemingly uses Edgar Leoni's 1961 translation. Is this legal? Nobody seemed to care at Wikisource. I don't think it is in the public domain. TuckerResearch (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right. It's Leoni's original translation from Century II.1 (where whoever attempted it evidently gave up) to the end. As you suggest, it is copyright Edgar Leoni 1961, contrary to Wikirules. The fact that it is frequently plagiarised on the Net is no excuse. --PL (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal threats and foul language

Are personal threats and foul language by Davidmabus and his anonymous alter ego permitted under Wikipedia rules? If not, why has he not been blocked? --PL (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with External Links section

Hi PL - I was wondering why you reinstated the external links I removed from the Nostradamus article. As far as I could see they were all amateur sites/French language sites/dead links? As far as I'm aware none of these meet Wikipedia standards for external links. Arthur Holland (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Arthur

I didn't remove all of them, and thought I had left in only the ones that were relevant. Unfortunately much of the research on Nostradamus is amateur (there are no 'approved' Nostradamus scholars, licensed by some kind of 'Nostradamus Authority'!), and the vast majority of it (naturally) is French. Given that he was a French author, this is only to be expected. Surely Wikipedia doesn't expect us to be that parochial? If it did, there would be precious little research to refer to!

Sorry if I missed any dead links, though. Please feel free to remove those at will! --PL (talk) 11:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi again - should have got back to you sooner on this.

Firstly, I want to address your point above, that "much of the research on Nostradamus is amateur". Are you suggesting that because most "research" available is amateur, we should therefore not worry about its quality/provenance, and just include links to any old rubbish? That simply isn't acceptable.

PL's responses

Hi Arthur

Of course not! Hopefully the links aren't to 'any old rubbish'. We've excluded plenty of that in the past!

The problems with most of these sites is that they do not meet Wikipedia's requirements for external links, specifically, the following are found in the "Links normally to be avoided":

• Point 1 "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."

I'm afraid I don't understand what that means. Presumably the operative term is 'unique resource'. If so, I agree that the resource should be unique.

• Point 2 "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting."

• Point 10 "Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or e-mail lists."

• Point 11 of the "Links normally to be avoided" section --"Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)"

I'll go through the links on a case-by-case basis and detail my objections:

Thanks.

• Nostradamus FAQs - This is a blog and therefore not acceptable under point 11 of Wikipedia's EL requirements.

'Except those written by a recognized authority,' say the regulations. The trouble is that Peter Lemesurier is the author of many of the basic source books used for the article, has several times been asked by the Nostradamus experts in N's hometown of Salon-de-Provence to lecture to them in French on the seer, was hauled in by France 3 TV to comment on the alleged 'Nostradamus' prophecies following 9/11, and was employed as official consultant by the History Channel and UK's Channel 4 for their Nostradamus films -- not that they took much notice! -- as well as featured by the Discovery and National Geographic channels. Thus he is widely 'recognised as an authority' on the subject -- even, rightly or wrongly, as the world's leading English language authority. Ask around if you don't believe it (try Googling him?). Perhaps it's because there aren't too many others who know 16th century French and have studied all the texts and French research intensively -- or even have sufficient French to do so.

I wasn't aware of his (your?) status as an authority on Nostradamus, but now that I am, I accept what you've said above.

• Timeline - the problem with this site (and all the others under the .propheties.it domain) is that it is a personal webpage -- the greeting on the home page is "From all the works published on the web and from my personal library I have tried to gather the best material available concerning Nostradamus and everything on prophecies." It therefore flouts point 11 above.

Yes, I can see that that might be a problem. Mario does tend to personalise his site. But that doesn't make it a 'personal webpage' -- i.e. a page about Mario. Nor does it mean that his info itself is the slightest bit personal. It's all perfectly dispassionate research. And his main facsimile page is by far the most respected and comprehensive collection of Nostradamus facsimiles in the world. Are you seriously proposing to deny readers a link to that merely because of some piece of (I'm afraid I have to say it) half-understood Wikipedantry? Stand back for a minute. What does the rule want us to avoid? Clearly, personal webpages devoted mainly to the persons concerned, their lives, loves and interests. That is clearly not what Mario's webpage is. Do try and get past the words to the actual meaning and principle involved!

My understanding of the term "personal website" was that it meant a non-professional and/or "hobby" site, rather than a site about one's "personal" life. However, I accept that this is a useful resource, so yes, a common sense approach would suggest that the link remains. Also see below my response to your origins of the Propheties response for details of my concerns with amateur original research

The Timeline also flouts point 1, as it doesn't provide "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article."

I would know whether I agreed with you if I understood what that actually meant. So far as I know, it isunique.

I agree that this isn't the most clearly worded of guidelines, but I think the point being made is that an external link shouldn't provide factual information that would be incorporated into the Wikipedia article were it of Featured status, i.e. external links shouldn't replicate information that could and should be incorporated into the article itself. In this case the article is of FA status and most of the details in the timeline are already in the article. Therefore, those details in the timeline external page that aren't already in the article should be incorporated into the article itself and the page link should be moved to the references section (assuming it meets the reliable sources criteria).

• origins of the Propheties -- Although this site seems to propose (I believe quite reasonably) that Nostradamuses "prophecies" were simply jumbled accounts of events that had already taken place, the fact is that this is all original research. It is also, as far as I can see, a personal webpage. It therefore flouts points 2 and 11 of Wikipedia's EL reuirements.

Since when did all linked websites have to be non-original? I thought that applied only to articles. The guidelines on external links say nothing whatever about 'original research'. Are you sure you're not just trying to cause as much trouble as possible by inventing regulations for us to have already broken, such as that linked sites shouldn't be nasty French ones? If we can't link to original research, what is the point? Moreover, the site is certainly not about Gary personally, and therefore not a personal webpage. From the way you are talking, anybody would think that all linked web pages had to be by licensed corporations approved by heaven knows whom!

I agree that there's no ban on links to original research, but, to apply common sense, the original research would surely have to be produced by a noted authority on the subject rather than an enthusiastic amateur. For instance, I wouldn't expect the page on the Battle of the Somme to provide an external link to a page containing original research by, say, a dentist or a bus driver who happened to have an interest in the First World War. I can see that you're thanked on the front page, but is Gary Somai an authority? What are his credentials?

• CURA's major international academic forum - This is just awful. The chap who runs this site (Patrice Guinard) is a self-declared astrologer. Here is an example of his response to a question in an interview on the site:

"Astrology survived its detractors, unlike multiple practices, religions and ideologies which fell into abeyance, because it conceals a part of truth about the nature of man and the world. Modern ideology will not be able to refuse this statement for a much longer time. Sociological analyses related to astrology are only meant to deceive, but since they are intellectually as poor as most astrological discourses, they will very soon completely be forgotten. An astrologer should not have to take a position: he must work, perfect his arms and his tool, so as to be capable of standing up to hostility."

This site totally fails on point 2 (and I think probably on point 11 as well). Also the description in the link -- "CURA's major academic forum" -- is decidedly misleading. As far as I can see this is just a New Age "true believer" rambling on. It is not a "major academic forum".

Granted, he does seem a bit of a twerp. But if you actually look at the page referred to, you'll see that it is just that -- an academic forum containing academic papers contributed by scholars from all over the world (latterly excluding Lemesurier, as the two seem to have fallen out!). Unless, of course, it has recently changed -- I'll take a further look and see. [PS Just checked -- no less than 139 of them at the last count!! Do you seriously want to deny readers the chance to study all that research, merely because the bloke running it seems a twerp? Do get a sense of proportion!]

A number of other issues worry me here:

• Of the 139 articles you mentioned, 112 are (as far as I can tell - my French is very basic) written by Patrice Guinard (a man you describe as "[seeming to be] a bit of a twerp", and who is decidedly non-scientific/mainstream-academic in his outlook, but who is a "practicing" astrologer). Therefore, I don't see why these 112 articles are regarded as valid material for external links.
• The remaining, non-Patrice Guinard, articles are all locked and require a login id. I'm unsure if this is available without payment, but the guidelines state that external links to websites requiring registration or subscription should be avoided.
• This page of links (and the articles linked to) are all in French. I can't see a link for an English-language version of this page, but my aplogies if I've missed it. I realise foreign language pages aren't banned but the guidelines "strongly encourage" English language links.

Seen cumulatively these separate issues are, in my opinion, enough to question whether the CURA page is a valid external link.

• Nostradamus Research Group - this isn't a "Research group": it's a Yahoo groups page and fails on point 10.

At last you have found an objection that actually fits! But even so, a Yahoo group that is a research group isn't ipso facto a social networking group. It depends on what it is being used for. Once again, you're talking about the words rather than what is being advised against.

I wasn't objecting to this link on the grounds of it being a social networking group, I was objecting to it specifically because it's a Yahoo Group page. The guideline explicitly states that Yahoo Group pages are generally to be avoided. Is there a specific reason that the guideline should be disregarded in this case?

I really don't see how any of this can stay, especially on a Featured Article page. Please let me know what you think. I'm going to post these issues up on the talk page of the article as well. Arthur Holland (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

A much better idea than posting it on my User Page, given that it about the article and not about me. Bear in mind, though, that everybody has been happy with the links as posted ever since long before it became a Featured Article -- and that was years ago! In which case one wonders why it was ever accorded the distinction of becoming a Featured Article in the first place. Obviously nobody else found it objectionable then. So I fail to see why it should suddenly become objectionable now. (Could it merely be -- he asks, michievously -- because it is Arthur Holland who is looking at it?)

Two points here: 1) The Yahoo Groups link wasn't present when the page gained featured article status, and 2) Featured article status doesn't automatically mean the article is flawless -- the fact that no-one else has objected doesn't necessarily mean that my concerns aren't valid

Please note that the Wiki guidelines specify that common sense should be the guide. Pedantic adherence to the letter, rather than the spirit, of what are in any case only recommendations is unlikely to achieve that. The points you list are not 'requirements for external links' (as you so helpfully put it): they are merely things that (according to the rubric) 'one should generally avoid'. I take 'generally' to mean 'as a matter of general policy, without regard to particular circumstances.'

Apologies for intercalating my responses, but it seemed by far the most convenient thing to do. Besides, it is (or rather was, before you transferred it here) my User Page!! (Perhaps you would offer your criticisms one at a time in future?)

To sum up, then:

1. The Wikirubric on external links does not object to blogs by recognised authorities.

Fair enough

2. It discourages linking to personal websites (i.e. essentiallly autobiographical websites), not to private websites (i.e. websites by individuals), let alone to major research sites and specific research pages such as those that are currently being linked to. (Even blogs by recognised authorities are inevitably 'private'.)

Not sure about this. My take was that this guideline meant generally avoiding "amateur" pages rather than "autobiographical" pages.

3. It does not specify whether these sites should be presented formally or informally, personally or impersonally.

OK

4. It does not specify whether they should be in the third or first person.

OK

5. It does not ban links to original research (it would clearly be ridiculous if it did).

Applying common sense, I believe OR cannot be seen as valid material for external links if that OR is not being produced by a recognised authority

6. It does not ban appropriate links to foreign sites, let alone to major research databases of papers by international scholars.

OK

7. It is concerned with the contents of the pages linked, not with the characters or other interests of their hosts.

8. Its overall context is clearly links to external sources of information: the link to the Nostradamus Research Group does not fall within this context, being merely an invitation to readers to apply to join it in order to discuss the topic (something which Wikipedia itself does not allow, and is therefore perfectly appropriate and acceptable). It is therefore not subject to this part of the rubric.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here.

9. It uses the expression 'one should generally avoid' to cover topics such as those that you have raised, not 'must always be avoided no matter what the circumstances'.

OK

10. It stresses that all its recommendations should be interpreted not 'in the most crassly negative way possible', but with common sense -- something that appears to be strangely lacking, alas, from your criticisms as tabled.

I shall try to be less crassly negative and strangely lacking in common sense in future.

11. I'm afraid, in short, that they are therefore baseless.

Nothing personal, of course, but there it is!

--PL (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with PL's assessment above. The links would otherwise be so limiting that it would be very difficult for any actual research to be accessed? Happydebater (talk) 22:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Happydebater (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC) > . HD Happydebater (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Finally, the item cited by Arthur is a guideline and nothing more. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 14:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

[Unsigned abuse, accusations of racism, and personal vituperation deleted: see 'History' if you really want to read it! Unfortunately the topic of Nostradamus does attract such people.]

Well, well, Arthur, what supporters you do have! I would imagine that the above extended screed breaks virtually all the Wikipedia rules possible. Maybe you should attend to this anonymous offering before criticising relatively innocuous things such as the article's external links? --PL (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding yet PL. I'm putting together my thoughts and will post them shortly. Hasten to add that I had nothing to do with last poster, although I'm not sure what you mean by saying that I should "attend to this before criticising...". I posted my concerns before this troll turned up and he's nothing to do with me. Arthur Holland (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, Arthur! Perhaps I over-reacted. But then, under the circumstances... (!!) Still, as he seems to be perfectly content with the prospect of being blocked, perhaps he should be? --PL (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again,

Thanks for the detailed and comprehensive response. A couple of general points I'd make are:

• Yes, you're right to say that the policies I cited are guidelines to be applied with commonsense and not written-in-stone rules. I would therefore accept that my arguments based on these being written-in-stone rules were flawed.
• I've also intercalated (in green for clarity) my responses to your responses.
• I don't see any need for you to characterise my comments as "making trouble". I posted in good faith because I want Wikipedia to be the best encyclopedia possible. I accept that not everything I said was correct; I accept that there is room for a difference of opinion on other issues, but I would ask that you assume good faith.

Apologies if I've missed anything. Arthur Holland (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Arthur. Your good faith is naturally assumed. However, this is getting impossibly complicated, so let’s deal with just a handful of your points to start with:

1. In view of what you say, you may be right about the ‘Timeline’ link, so I’ll leave you to incorporate any details that aren’t already there into the article. I doubt whether it’s worth moving the link to the references section, though, as most of the existing references there already support it. It is derivative, not authoritative.

2. Not sure about your ‘noted authority’ point about linked websites. Gary is merely offering concrete evidence for the theory that is already reported and referenced in the article. It’s not authoritative, merely speculative, but so are all theories about how Nostradamus actually worked. Gary and I worked together on his materials, and their textual accuracy is not in question. Indeed, his detailed research informs part of mine, and I would regard his work as highly impressive in the limited sphere to which it applies. Readers deserve to be given access to all the reputable research, so that they can assess it for themselves in the light of the textual evidence presented.

3. Re Patrice Guinard, all his articles are intensely referenced to noted authorities, and many of them contain actual facsimiles of the originals. There are articles by some of those authorities, such as Benazra and Halbronn (who possibly knows more about the Nostradamus texts than anybody alive). There is a copy of the proceedings of the Paris Nostradamus conference on Nostradamus of 2000. There is also an extremely useful list of online editions, which is … well… plainly factual. There are only a handful of original, creative articles by Guinard himself , who is himself extremely knowledgeable about the texts (possibly more so than I am). None of the page proposes any crazy theories of the type that one might expect from your comments, and all of it is strictly academic. Therefore the page-link should be maintained, given that his page, along with Benazra's, is among the best and most informative that we have (I am, of course, saying nothing about the rest of his website!). You may not have noticed that 'CURA' stands for Centre Universitaire de Recherche en Astrologie!

4. The point about the Nostradamus Research Group is that the guidelines, read in context, clearly apply only to the use of social networking groups for informational purposes. I can see no reason why its discussion facilities should not be advertised. And finally,

5. Re your point about websites in French... there is no reason why you shouldn't flag them as French, if you wish, given that Wikipedia has supplied you with the tools for doing so.

Hopefully this addresses your complaints. But if not, could you please present one of them at a time in future?

And meanwhile please bear in mind that the object of the whole exercise is to give readers access to reliable facts on the subject -- which is notoriously not, alas, something that they will find in most of the published books. This even applies to Britannica: to quote just its online sample:

'Nostradamus, also called Michel De Notredame, [he wasn't] or Nostredame (born Dec. 14, 1503, Saint-Rémy, France—died July 2, 1566, Salon), French astrologer [he wasn't, and didn't claim to be] and physician [having been kicked out of medical college, he almost certainly wasn't], the most widely read seer of the Renaissance.

Nostradamus began his medical practice in Agen in 1529 and moved to Salon in 1544 [it was 1546: he was in Marseille in 1544], where he gained renown for his innovative medicine and treatment [this is doubtful, especially since he himself admitted that none of his methods worked] during outbreaks of the plague at Aix and Lyon in 1546–47 [it's not certain that the Lyon outbreak was plague]. He began making prophecies about 1547 [he wasn't even in the country at the time, and his first Almanach was in fact published in 1550], which he published in 1555 in a book entitled Centuries [it wasn't, and it was only the first instalment]. The work consisted of rhymed quatrains grouped in hundreds, each set of 100 called a ... (100 of 272 words) .

See what I mean (just in case you were interested!)? And that's without even considering all the lurid nonsense constantly published in the popular press! So treasure the proffered information!

--PL (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

History Channel show

Just thought I'd mention, under the Popular/Media section shouldn't there be a mention on the History Channel show called "The Nostradamus Effect"? It's a show basically dedicated to discussing his works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.154.32 (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Would need to go in the Article Nostradamus in popular culture if at all. But are you sure it's not just the usual lurid History Channel nonsense, completely incompatible with the main article? --PL (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Unmentioned alternative view

There is one more alternative point of view not currently mentioned in that Section of the Article. According to this viewpoint, Michel De Nostradame was actually writing about several heads of state, who ruled various countries during his lifetime. For fear of being killed or tortured, he claimed to be writing "about the future" as a kind of cover story. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You would need to source that view before adding it (with a reference) -- since, so far as I am aware, none of the listed sources for the article in fact mention it. When referring to contemporary heads of state, he usually does so specifically by including identifiable details (e.g. re Francois I, Charles V, Suleiman the Magnificent et al) in terms that are clearly about their futures, and not just as an unattributable cover-story. --PL (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A short selection of books on Nostradamus in English.

(1) David OVASON "The Nostradamus Code" (Arrow Books [Random House UK Ltd] London, 1998)

(2) Edgar LEONI "Nostradamus and His Prophecies" (Wings Books, New York, 1961)

(3) James LAVER "Nostradamus: The Future Foretold" (1942; 1973 update; my copy is by George Mann Books, 1978 reprint).

(4) Henry C ROBERTS "The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus" (1947; my copy is by Grafton [HarperCollins] London, 1985).

86.178.184.95 (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If you were proposing to include these, they would need to be under a new section, possibly entitled 'A short selection of further books on Nostradamus in English', and would need to include Fontbrune (in translation) and (alas!) Cheetham and Hogue! You'll find reviews of a lot of them on my User Page. Possibly, though, they'd be better attached to the article 'Nostradamus in popular culture'. I'm not sure that I would favour either, though, as most of them are highly misleading, even Leoni (his magnificent effort is pretty dated now)! --PL (talk) 08:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. My selection is meant for newcomers to the subject, and in descending order of quality! I'm disappointed that the Wiki article doesn't give more weight to Ovason: his book is a masterpiece, head and shoulders above any other that I've read in its interpretations and scholarship, though Ovason is, obviously, "a believer". Leoni is comprehensive, scholarly and impartial; a good reference source. Laver is readable and at least manages to rise above the level of speculative trash. The Roberts book is cited as a warning: even with only moderate Degree-level knowledge of 1500s French, you can see that his translations are not justified.

A final thought about (1): the name "David Ovason" can be analysed as "daVIDOVAson" (a "Son of the Widow" ?!) 109.150.122.56 (talk) 09:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I'd part company with you re Ovason's quality, though: see my User Page re him here. But I'll say no more here, other than to say that, good as he was for his time, his French seems to me pretty awful, and his 'interpretations' worse. --PL (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again - I'm sure you know much more about this than me. Still, I do think it's a pity that Ovason gets little more attention than Cheetham! (i) Yes, we must go to the earliest/cleanest text, to avoid later errors and falsifications. But the French Revolution, Napoleon and the defeats of 1870 & 1940 were as much in the distant future in the 1670s as in the 1550s, even if the fall of Cyprus and the Battle of Lepanto, about five years after N's death, were by then in the past. Laver anticipated this sort of objection in his comment on Malachy's papal epithets: even if they are a late-1500s fake (and not from c.1140), what of all the Popes since 1600? So I don't think the textual sources argument, per se, refutes Ovason's readings. (ii) Ovason admits that he can't really "translate" Nostradamus' prophetic verse and urges readers to at least try to read the original (a French-based Romance hybrid). I recall reading, as a student, a translation of Villon's "Testament" into English: most useful for an undergraduate, but you just can't translate the lyric poetry or the hidden names/anagrams. Nostradamus is more cryptic than Villon, so I don't think Ovason's French is the problem. 86.182.142.77 (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Interpretations clarification

This sentence was not too clear to me because the ending is a little ambiguous.

"Nostradamus enthusiasts have credited him with predicting numerous events in world history, from the Great Fire of London, and the rise of Napoleon and Adolf Hitler, to the 11 September attacks on the World Trade Center,[14] but only ever in hindsight."

Is the qualifier "only ever in hindsight" really needed here? As the sentence is speaking about the enthusiasts, I am sure that none of them are claiming predictions only ever in hindsight in their view. Or is this the evaluation of enthusiasts hypothesis by skeptics?. It could also be interpreted to mean that "Nostradamus predicted numerous events [...] only ever in hindsight", which is semantically meaningless as his writings predate these supposed predicted events that actually happened in the future with respect to Nostradamus. Chaozu42 (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What it means is that people only ever claim that his prophecies are valid with the benefit of hindsight -- i.e. by retrofitting them to events, usually by twisting the texts unmercifully. They have never (to my knowledge) succeeded in using any given quatrain to predict any given event. Since that is what all the reputable sources listed say, and is what most readers seem to interpret it as meaning, it therefore deserves to stay as it is. --PL (talk) 15:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I dropped the word "enthusiast" to make the article more objective. Some of the prophecies were commented on in advance by "non-enthusiasts" - e.g., the letters of Venetian ambassadors ca. 1560 concerning the illness of Francis II, and later he was used as a propaganda item during World War II. Although retroactive hindsight applies to the majority of interpretations, we should not say "all." This section needs to be rewritten to include the exceptions to the rule. While I agree that the year 3797 was probably calculated from 1555 + 2242, that is a particular interpretation not held by all. If we want to keep that statement, then properly source it (e.g. from Brind'Amour) to avoid original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Webber (talk • contribs) 15:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll look at the 'all' in question, if you will kindly point it out to me (can't find it at present) -- though you'll need to offer some idea of the 'exceptions' (just one would do!). Some idea of how you think the section (which section?) needs re-writing would also help. The 3797 bit is indeed sourced -- from Bernard Brinette's published dossier as detailed, which isn't original research on Wikipedia. I'll see if I can find an online source for it: give me a day or two. (If you feel that Brinette isn't regarded by the scholars as a reputable enough source -- though so far as I know he is -- then even less so are Cannon (!!) and Robb (!!!), both of whom in my view belong under 'Nostradamus in popular culture' if at all, and not here!) --PL (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The word "all" is not in the article but it implies it. So exceptions to retroactive hindsight should be comments by the Venetian ambassadors, there are others, but that would entail going through all previous commentator's books on Nostradamus, so that should do (especially since these diplomats viewed Nostradamus with disdain). I did not add that in because I would have to reword the paragraph a bit more. As for the year 3797, I misread the source I thought you referenced Roussat. Elsewhere the article states somewhere that commentators can't agree on a single interpretation of any past fulfilled quatrain, which is not true - there are a certain set of "core" quatrains that most interpreters do agree upon (e.g., the fire of London.) (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.67.131.215 (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, no -- some popular books may (see the article under 'Alternative views'), but Lemesurier doesn't, Prévost doesn't, Clébert doesn't, Gruber doesn't, even Leoni doesn't, and more importantly Brind'Amour doesn't (the idea was first floated in the Dutch edition of 1668, significantly just two years after the Fire, though it was most avidly taken up by the modern popularist Erika Cheetham). The claimed connection is of course already mentioned in the article. I don't know who you're counting as 'interpreters', but it doesn't look to be anybody very reputable (see the article's list of reputable sources under 'References')! By all means, though, suggest any other interpretations that you think are universally agreed, and I'll check (I hope there aren't too many of them, though, as this lot has already taken me three hours to research!).

As for 'retroactive hindsight', the article already says 'for the most part in hindsight', which implies that sometimes it may not have been: isn't that sufficient? As for the story about the Venetian ambassador, Tornabuoni of Tuscany is supposed to have reported back in alarm because N's December predictions in his Almanach for 1560 seemed menacing and everybody at Court was spooked as a result (the annual Almanachs always had much greater public impact than the Prophecies and were widely sold on the streets at the November fairs). Meanwhile Brind'Amour reports (1993, pp.39-40) that, according to ambassador Suriano of Venice about a week before that, the astrologers were already predicting the young King François II's death that year. No mention of Nostradamus, though (he wasn't, of course, a professional astrologer himself -- in fact, as VI.(100) shows, he despised them -- though he naturally applied other people's astrological tables when it suited him and wasn't above doing some 'I am psychic' consultations allegedly on the basis of them). It looks as if N's verse X.39 (allegedly published the same year without any explanation about what he meant by deux Isles -- though we have only the posthumous 1568 version) was merely building on rumours that were already around, then presumably claiming the credit afterwards when they appeared to have come true in retrospect. --PL (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in anticipation of your response, allow me to treat you to a brief extract from my book Nostradamus: Bibliomancer, which hopefully will jog your memory about 'universally agreed' interpretations:

"HOW ON EARTH DID HE DO IT? How could Nostradamus, that mysterious 16th-century Prophet of Provence, possibly have managed to predict, as is widely believed, such events as:

• the death in a joust of King Henri II of France in 1559

• the rule of Oliver Cromwell between 1653 and 1658

• the Great Fire of London of 1666

• the French Revolution of 1789

• the life of Napoleon Bonaparte up to 1821

• the foundation of the Institut Pasteur in 1888

• the First World War of 1914-18

• the Russian Revolution of 1917

• the abdication of King Edward VIII in 1936

• the activities of Adolf Hitler up to 1945

• the Second World War of 1939-45

• the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945

• the Apollo moon landing of 1969

• the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster of 1986

• the death in a car crash of Diana Princess of Wales in 1997

• the catastrophic attack on New York’s World Trade Centre of September 11th, 2001

• the world financial crisis of 2008 and

• the End of the World in December 2012

– most of them centuries in advance?

The answer, alas, is that he didn’t. "

The book goes on to analyse and explain each of these in turn. If you want to see what it says about any particular ones, feel free to say so -- but if you want the lot, I'm afraid you're going to have to beg, borrow or steal the book (which, after all, does come with a CD containing facsimiles of all the basic texts!). --PL (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who had changed the sentence 'always in hindsight' to 'for the most part in hindsight.' I originally thought the reference to Le Pelletier's "guesswork" was sufficient for an example. Although the Venetian ambassador Suriano only mentions "astrologers", this is most likely a reference to quatrain X.39 which mentions the eighteenth year. There is another quote from Suriano which specifically mentions the "39th quatrain of century X" found in Leoni's work (I read somewhere an author could not find the original for this,however). This quatrain was published in 1558 in an edition now lost, and Francis II did not fall ill until November 1560. I don't know why you are saying Nostradamus was not a professional astrologer - he did publish astrological almanacs, he did do horoscopes - at times borrowed, and he was paid for it. And contemporaries did call him an astrologer. That he was an astrologer should probably be added at the beginning of the article. He just happened to not be very good at it - thus astrologers criticized him, for whom he published VI.100. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Webber (talk • contribs) 17:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your very useful comments, Doug. The fact that you changed 'always in hindsight' to 'for the most part in hindsight' explains it, then -- and is more than sufficient to cover all possible objections, in my view, if not actually rather over-generous.

There is no actual evidence that Suriano was referring to X.39 which, as I say, seems to have been based on what the contemporary astrologers to whom he was referring were already saying. Here's an OCR of his report:

"et è venuto anco in consideratione un pronostico fatto da astrologhi, che ello non sia per passare li xviij dieciotto anni di vita. Et cosI ogn‘uno discorre secondo le sue passioni, facendo li suoi conti, che se accorresse qualche sinistro accidente a questi tempi, che Db non vogua seguire non solamente la confusion~6 totale di quelli che al presente sono al Governo, ma ancora la universale revolutione del Regno quanu alla religione, perchè il successor, per esser di tenera età sana messo sotto rutela et forse del Re di Navarra, come più vecchio, et più prossimo del sangue il quale o consentendo ah humor commune dei populi, che sono per la più parte infetti di questa peste, o non possando reprimerli et tenerli in freno, aprirà la via alla hicentia, et al disordine, che sana causa della ruina del Regno et di tutta la Cristianita insieme, perchè con questo essempia le provincie vicine, et massime la Italia diventariano insolenti et non potriano esser dalli loro Principi regolante."

I'm sure Google Translate will render that into English for you! As you can see, it says all sorts of things that aren't in X.39 -- and we don't in any case actually know that X.39 was published in its present form in 1558 since, as you say, that edition hasn't yet been rediscovered. However, I suspect that there were one or two quatrains in it (including this one) that Chavigny may have tampered with (as he was wont to) before they appeared in the 1568 edition. He was quite prepared to do this retrospectively in order to prove his adored master 'right' -- take the famous case of 'Presage 141', for example -- enthusiasm pushed too far, in other words! Time alone will reveal whether I'm right on that one. As for the other alleged Suriano text quoted by Leoni, this is of course merely another piece of unsourced Le Pelletier, who I'm afraid can't be regarded as reliable: the sheer detail of it makes it suspect from the start!

As to whether N was an astrologer or not, this is of course somewhat contentious (there is a whole chapter in the book devoted to this question). But the fact remains (a) that he never called himself one (he instead used the term astrophile, or 'star-lover', presumably for good reason) (b) he was totally incapable of producing his own planetary tables, or even to transcribe others' accurately (see Videl's critique), often getting planets in the wrong signs or houses, (d) even with the published tables, he was clearly unable to adjust them for his clients' place or time of birth, as any proper astrologer would have done (he always just used the raw figures for noon at wherever they had been calculated!) and (e) rather than preparing their birthcharts himself, he usually asked them to produce one previously drawn up by a reputable astrologer (we can identify precisely whose through their figures), which were all 100% correct, while nearly all of those he had to do himself contained whole rafts of errors. Granted, he did quite a trade in personal 'astrological' consultations, and allegedly based his Almanachs on astrology, too -- but if you look at them closely you'll see that what he says in them has virtually nothing to do with the astrology in their charts (quite apart from being largely wrong, too)! So, while he was certainly regarded as an astrologer, he lacked virtually all the skills which that profession demanded -- presumably because, as Videl puts it, he 'did not enter through the true door' (presumably indicating that he hadn't undergone the necessary university training in the subject and so wasn't a qualified astrologer -- and if so there were perfectly good reasons for that...). And Videl should have known, given that, according to Brind'Amour (1996), he actually taught astrology at Avignon! --PL (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see you added a reference to your book, missed that while I was typing my last entry. I already have it. Actually, I already have most of your books. Well done research, Peter. I already have the original texts, but I have not compared them to the ones on your CD yet. Please don't mind if I disagree with your viewpoint for now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Webber (talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No, indeed not! --PL (talk) 10:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Surprised to see you here on wikipedia. Yes, I am aware of that entry by Suriano. But in 1561 he makes another entry where he specifically refers to the "astrologer Nostra Adam" and said he predicted Catherine would live to see all her sons to be kings. Now, as for that quote "39th quatrain of century X" Leoni states that it is found in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Manuscript du fonds italien #1721-4-193, which he states was a copy made in the 18th century. So I don't think he used Le Pelletier on that one, and it looks like another entry. And although he was sloppy in his calculations (or simply used astrology as a cover), he did publish those astrological almanacs - back then astrology was used to predict the weather. Probably his studies were interrupted when the plague hit Avignon.

Yes, that's how I read it, too. I see that Brind'Amour quotes the 1721 'copy' (the 'copies' of it in fact vary considerably!) of the alleged Suriano text of 1561 -- which in itself would have involved a six-year-old memory, since Nostradamus had last been in Paris in 1555 -- unless Suriano somehow gained access to the Queen's private correspondence. [It is to this that the fonds italien document refers, BTW, not specifically to X.39 -- and this says nothing about the king's death before the age of 18, as is often supposed] I'm not sure what that proves: one wouldn't expect ambassadors to be able to distinguish astrologers from reputed astrologers, especially when they can't even get their names right and so presumably haven't met them! Sounds like hearsay to me -- as the misspelling tends to confirm. And of course, predicting the French royal succession is fortune-telling, not something that can be done with astrology, as any professional astrologer will tell you. As for those Almanacs, as I have already said, their contents have, in the main, very little to do with their astrology. (Surprised to see me here? -- yes, not too many scholars would deign to participate!)

We don't seem to have the 1560 Almanac to whose December predictions Tornabuoni refers, but the Grand Pronostication Nouvelle for the same month says: 'Dernier quart [de la lune] le 10 a 2 heures... mourront des plus grands, tant en la hierarchie que a la monarchie... Nouvelle lune le 16. a 18 heures... ici mourront des plus apparents que lon esperoit beaucoup...' Thus neither quote says anything specific about X.39 and the King dying before 18, the age of majority: in fact the verse can't be about France at all, since the French royal age of majority was 13. The 'deux isles' would seem to be England and Scotland, thus suggesting Edward VI (1537 – 1553), who more or less fits. So did N write the above before or after the astrologers spoke? I suspect it was afterwards: it's so tempting to generalise the particular so as to give an air of 'mystery'.

Anyway, this board is supposed to be about the article, not about its subject (the right forum for that is either the Nostradamus Research Group or one of the two main French forums -- see External Links), so how are you proposing to change it, if at all? The article, after all, already contains 11 references to N's astrology. Bear in mind that any new assertion in this regard would need to be accompanied by all the evidence (see above) on both sides of the question, rather as per the Nostradamus article in German Wikipedia, which might be thought to amount to too much detail for a general article... --PL (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not a person that believes in predictions. But it seems to me a lot of people are missing an important point with regard to the King of Terror: 1999 Century 10, Quatrain 72 which says, "The year 1999, seventh month, From the sky 'will come' a great King of Terror. To bring back to life the great King of the Mongols, Before and after Mars to reign by good luck." The first planning of the Air attack on the WTC was in Afghanistan July 1999 this is also when Atta met Bin Laden. They key words you guys are missing it would seem to me is the words 'will come' not that it is going to take place that date. It kinda crept me out when i read the date they met not believing in predictions but it was a major coincidence. --OxAO (talk) 00:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have got hold of a dud translation. The original text says nothing about a 'King of Terror' (deffraieur, which has no apostrophe, means 'defrayer', 'provider' or 'steward'), or about any Mongols (Angolmois/Angoumois is a perfectly well-known area of western France, and there is no such French word as 'Mongolois') -- and, of course, neither Atta nor Bin Laden were Mongols. On top of that, 'du ciel' typically means 'of the (astrological) region' rather than 'from the sky', while viendra probably doesn't mean 'will come' at all, but is a typically Nostradamian form of future tense that goes with resusciter to mean 'shall resuscitate'. Please see here. Not that this is the place to discuss Nostradamus's texts, let alone modern 'retrodiction': this board is supposed to be exclusively about the article! --PL (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with you or anything but I have two questions:

1. Found the direct translation using google translate. "In the year nineteen hundred ninety nine seven months, The sky will come a grad deffraieur King. Life the great King of Angolmois. Before Mars to reign by good luck." (not perfect but "the sky" and "will come" are there.)

2. what do you mean "article?" isn't important to get the translation correct? Thank you

My point seems to still hold. Doesn't really matter how it this guy is interpreted he seemed to have gotten the rest of it correct.

--OxAO (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

1. There is no such thing as the translation of a foreign text (let alone the direct one!), but only a translation, since French words don't mean English words -- and as far as X.72 is concerned, neither (since you ask) forms part of the article that we're supposed to be discussing.

2. Google Translate is not designed to interpret 16th century French (which was quite different from modern French), let alone Nostradamus's version of it.

3. If it were, it would know that Nostradamus sometimes uses 'ciel' to mean 'astrological sky' -- i.e. 'geographical region' -- to say nothing of 'heaven' (which is still one of its meanings today).

4. It would also know that he routinely uses 'viendra + infinitive' as a form of future tense of the verb in question, where modern French might use 'va + infinitive'.

But it isn't and so doesn't.

As for Nostradamus's accuracy, I suggest you read the article.

--PL (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

fine but there is no mention in this article on actually what happened in July 1999. which that date was clearly stated. I believe I read it in the 911 commission report.

--OxAO (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have added a note re the '1999' prediction, which leads on to further links... --PL (talk) 08:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

'Sources', or 'References'?

Despite the no-doubt-honestly-held views of the only objector to the heading 'Sources' since the article became an approved Featured Article many years ago (who seems curiously reluctant to engage in Discussion here), rule WP:FNNR does not say that "References" or "Works cited" is preferred over "Sources"; nor does it say that "References" is the common standard for FAs and there should not be a deviation without a good reason. On the contrary, as well as permitting both 'References' and 'Works cited', it also states that "Sources" may be used, merely adding that, in computer-related articles, it could be confused with source code. It does not categorise these possibilities in any way. However, good reason there is, certainly. 'Sources' indicates that these are the reputable, peer-reviewed sources on which the article is based: 'References' could indicate that any additional reference will do, however disreputable, regardless or not of whether it was actually used as a source. There are dozens, if not hundreds of such works, and on past evidence nutters without number will add them to support their own crazy theories -- which won't help serious enquirers at all! But then no such explanation is required or expected in the first place. --PL (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no "only objector", unless you're implying the IP and I are the same person. We're not.

"References" is the standard title to use. It's starting to look like you must have your way by any means necessary because you feel like you own the article. I can see by the article's history and your userpage that you're very invested in the topic. Are you sure you're being objective here?

The sentence starting "'Sources' indicates that these..." — it really makes no sense at all.

Earlier you insisted on keeping the title "Sources for article", which shows you're not familiar with nor interested in keeping Wikipedia articles consistent in their layout. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 18:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

3O Opinion: Indeed References is a standard title. It is absolutely neutral, as all it means that the list below is what the editors refer to as a proof of the text. Word sources has the same meaning but is less common on Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the misidentification. Meanwhile can we please return to what WP:FNNR actually says? Here it is:

Possibilities include:

for a list of explanatory footnotes only: "Notes", "Footnotes"

for a list of citation footnotes only: "References", "Notes" ("Citations" may be used but is problematic because it may be confused with official awards)

for a list containing both types of footnote: "Notes", "Footnotes" ("References" may be used but is less appropriate)

for a list of general references: "References", "Works cited" ("Sources" may be used but may be confused with source code in computer-related articles; "Bibliography" may be used but may be confused with a list of printed works by the subject of a biography).

With the exception of "Bibliography," the heading should be plural even if it lists only a single item.[9]

Thus, the headings permitted for source-references are:

1. References

2. Works cited

3. Sources (but not in computer-related articles)

4. Bibliography (but not where the article's subject published printed works).

No preference is indicated by WP:FNNR. All are therefore presumably consistent with Wikipedia practice. For the reasons I have cited, 'References' invites the insertion of non-valid titles, 'Works cited' isn't appropriate because many of them are not cited specifically, 'Bibliography' is inappropriate for the reason given by WP:FNNR, and 'Sources' is exactly what they are, and in a non computer-related article too, even if it is less common.

Since we are governed here by what WP:FNNR says -- and not by what is more or less common in the view of any particular editor -- and the heading has always been 'Sources' or 'Sources for article' ever I since I wrote the majority of it (because that is precisely what they are), and nobody objected to this at the time when, many years ago, it was made a Featured Article in recognition of its excellence, I can see no possible objection to using 'Sources', especially given the flood of vandalistic edits that 'References' would (and certainly will) invite, given a subject as controversial as Nostradamus. Don't believe me? Wait and see, if you are unwise enough to insist on it! (As if the article didn't suffer enough vandalism as it is!)

Objective or not, I am merely trying to keep the article practical and reasonably secure from the nutters, who will be all over it if you have your way! --PL (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

To keep with precedent established through other articles, I'd suggest sticking with the title "References". --Thehistorian10 (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)—Thehistorian10 (talk) 20:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"I am merely trying to keep the article practical and reasonably secure from the nutters, who will be all over it if you have your way!" — that is not reasonable. A section title doesn't change what people can or can't add to it. In case of persistent vandalism, articles can be protected, as you know.

You/we already had problems with the title "Sources" since you had to retitle the other Sources section to Nostradamus' sources. "References" is preferred when "Sources" can be confusing or misleading, and here it is.

"Many years ago" the standards for FAs were different. Something being okay five years ago is not relevant now. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 21:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Your kind suggestion noted. But WP:FNNR doesn't say that we have to keep with precedent established through other articles. What's wrong with precedent long ago established through this one?

Re the nutters, are you aware of the vast number of rabid Nostradamaniacs there are out there, many of them just itching to pervert the article, as they have tried to do many times in the past? Hitherto it has been easy to dismiss their efforts on the grounds that the sources they were proposing were not among the 'Sources' on which the article is based. (In fact I had to do this only this morning, though the author didn't seem to be particularly maniacal on this occasion -- something that would have been much more difficult had the heading been 'References'.) If you change this to 'References', this will be less easy, since they could simply claim that they are applying another reference (though this could possibly be got around with by inserting a note at the head of the list explaining that it is indeed a list of the sources on which the article is based). And of course any maniacal intrusions would have to be dealt with before protection is applied: do you have sufficient knowledge of the subject to do this?

Agreed re the possible confusion between 'Nostradamus's sources' and 'Sources', but this can be dealt with perfectly easily by changing the former to 'Origins of the Prophecies'. In fact it might be preferable. Would you like me to do this?

Your further thoughts? --PL (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Now You proved that the name of the section doesn't actually stop people, so it's really doesn't make sense to keep the References section under an uncommon name. Furthermore, You can request protection for the article in order to prevent maniacs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't stop them, but it makes it easier to deal with them. WP:FNNR doesn't say anything about 'uncommon names'. --PL (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that MOS doesn't say something doesn't prove the absence of consensus. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the rules do have something to say about 'consensus', 'democracy' etc., though (see here). Meanwhile, given that I'm the one who'll probably have to deal with the nutters, since I don't imagine that you will...! ;) --PL (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

"given that I'm the one who'll probably have to deal with the nutters" — that is not a valid argument. And in any case, again, a section title doesn't change what can or can't be added to the article, as an IP just demonstrated to us. Your arguments about these claimed "nutters" and "maniacs" seem vastly exaggerated and irrelevant.

Wikipedia:Consensus: ""Consensus" on Wikipedia does not mean that decisions must be unanimous (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable)." After a while we'll need to end this discussion and edit the article according to the result of the debate. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 22:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. And you'll have to do a lot better than you have to date for that to happen. So far I've seen no convincing argument from you for changing 'Sources' to 'References', apart from the potential confusion with 'Nostradamus's sources', which, in view of your comments, I now propose to change anyway. As for 'exaggeration and irrelevance' about nutters and maniacs, if you had been on this case as long as I have, you would know that if anything I have understated the case: one editor even repeatedly deleted most of the article in order to present his cranky and dubiously resourced point of view. And since I'm the one who usually has to deal with them, I can assure you that being able to say 'What you say isn't based on the listed sources' is much easier and simpler (and much more likely to be accepted) than 'Your proposed edit shouldn't be accepted because of flaws x and y, which I shall now attempt to convince you of'. --PL (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Reminding the editor that his opinion may be ignored under circumstances hardly would help in coining consensus. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 01:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Really, the ease of maintenance would be a valid point, though You didn't prove that the odd name does make the maintenance easier. Actually, the argument You brought works against You, as the word "References" actually means "the material used here", while the word "Sources" stands for "Works on topic", and thus actually makes the risk of unwanted edits higher. And finally: the article is fairly stable, Nostradamous has died long ago and the news stream on topic is not that steady. Why not WP:PROTECT the article? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. For 'proof' I'm afraid you would need to go back into ancient history! Not so sure about your definitions, though: my dictionary defines 'Reference' as '... allusion... a direction to a book or passage', while 'Source' means '... a book or document serving as authority...' Certainly that's how I understand them, as, I suspect will most readers. To date 'Sources' has, I as indicated, worked quite well for the reasons stated above: you've just seen it in action. If the article is fairly stable, it is largely because of this, as well as because it has been either protected or semi-protected for much of its recent history: and I agree that it needs to continue to be, because it attracts nutters like flies to jam. Perhaps you would care to do the necessary? --PL (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've requested full protection. As for definitions, see wiktionary:source and wiktionary:reference. As for me, the latter describes the section in question by far more precisely. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for referring (!!) ['proprietary' formatting introduced to avoid multiple identation] .

I can see why you might reach that conclusion: perhaps the difference is between 'references' (to which reference may or possibly has been made) and 'sources' (to which reference definitely has been made). Cranky editors could quite easily and legitimately claim that they have introduced new references: it is less easy for them to claim that they have identified new sources for the article as a whole. At all events, it doesn't seem to me that the difference is so great as to justify forcing through a change which doesn't seem to be vital and over which there is evidently less than complete agreement, or consequently to merit prolonging the argument any longer. So may I suggest leaving things as they are unless and until we receive further reasoned complaints about it, and then restart the argument if necessary on the basis of those complaints? --PL (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

How many further reasoned complaints do you need? Again, "References" is the standard title to use for the section that validates the content of the article. Just look at nearly every other article on Wikipedia. In this case it may be appropriate to leave an invisible comment to editors to remind them what "references" mean, at least on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:CITE#General_references ("A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not displayed as an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "References" section, /--/"). — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 19:28, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

...and the Wiki 'References' section permits any one of four different headings. Back to square one, in other words.

OK, let me summarise the argument to date. So far I have taken a single, pretty consistent line: the heading 'Sources' is perfectly legal, fits the case perfectly, and has been shown to be effective in practice. The arguments advanced by you and your colleagues, by contrast, have constantly shifted ('How many more reasoned complaints?', as you so eloquently put it): first of all 'References' was the standard term (it isn't); then 'Sources' lacked precedent (it doesn't); then it risked confusion with an earlier heading (it doesn't now, as it has been changed); then 'Sources' was uncommon (the rules don't say anything about having to adopt majority practice); then it was against the consensus (the rules make it clear that consensus has to flow from discussion, not the reverse); then one interpretation of dictionary definitions 5 and 6 of one entry differs from mine of definition 1 of another (which is inevitable). This constant wriggling is distinctly unimpressive. It almost suggests that you simply don't like the term 'Sources' and are consequently determined to grab at any argument that promises to get rid of it (I wonder what you'll dredge up next?) If so, then, frankly, it is no basis for decision. 'When in doubt refrain.'--PL (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I read WP:FNNR as "It is possible to use 'References' title; if not, You can also use 'Cited Works'; if not, You can also use 'Sources', but not when it can confuse readers'. There are three editors here who think that option #1 is valid enough not to enter the if loop. You're against, because the options #1 and #2 don't allow You words play and wikilawyering. Really, Your grounds, as I told You before, do really play against Your position. Obviously, the Great Wall doesn't work as intended; obviously, page protection (declined due to low edit rates) would be more efficient if the problem ever existed. So, there is no doubt that the fallback version of section name — "References" — should be used. To make it more explicit: 3 other editors evaluated Your reasons and rejected them as unreasoned, so instead of criticizing the others You'd better try to imagine new arguments, as You consistent position already failed peer review. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Precisely which of the editors evaluated precisely which of my reasons as unreasoned (if they were not acting in collaboration)? Were their arguments free of wikilawyering? Under which part of WP:PR was my position peer-reviewed? And are there Wikipedia rules on cyberbullying or cyber-gang-warfare, as opposed to a simple RfA? --PL (talk) 16:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did You link WP:PR? Are You aware that "peer review" has also non-Wikipedia-specific meanings? And about the rest: all the other editors in discussion rejected Your arguments, which is fairly evident from the conversation. Or may be You think that everyone is joking here? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because we're in Wikipedia? Could that be it, I wonder? So which of them rejected which? (Most of their arguments so far seem to be a joke, certainly, having nothing to do with WP:FNNR) --PL (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You basically had two arguments: (1) it's not prohibited and (2) it's useful. While first is undisputable, the second was clearly considered void by Jean Calleo, Thehistorian10 and me, with all three of us stating that References is clearly better. We also have evidence of some IP user considering References a better choice. Is it clear? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. User: Jean Calleo asked me to comment here as an admin with no connection to the subject (as far as I know, I don't edit any articles directly related to divination). Regardless of what my own opinion may be, it is very clear that there is a good consensus to use the term "References"; this position seems to be based primarily upon the accurate claim that References is the term most commonly used across the 'pedia. WP:CONSENSUS does not require 100% unanimity; when numerous people, including previously uninvolved users (noting the 3O request above) all agree to the same wording, and no policy prevents or even suggests against such a wording, that super-majority will ultimately determine the article content. Of course, PL, if you want, you can pursue some additional form of [[[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] (an RfC would probably be the next step). However, you may want to step back for a minute and evaluate whether this is worth the effort; the guideline you keep citing (WP:FNNR) itself gives preference to either "References" or "Works Cited" (given that "Sources" appears only in a parenthetical aside and is specifically prefaced with "may", which neither other word has); your arguments for preferring "Sources" have not been accepted by other involved editors, and, after all, it's just one word. But, it is, of course, up to you to pursue or not pursue further DR on this issue. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

'May' indicates either (a) possibility or (b) legitimacy: it is fairly clear that the latter is intended here. 'Sources' admittedly appears in parentheses, but there is no reason to suppose it is merely an 'aside', any more than 'Bibliography'. I am therefore reverting the article for the moment, pending any further comments from other parties (several of whom have indicated to me that they would like to contribute as soon as opportunity allows): you did, after all, say 'ultimately! If the general view is then still that 'References' is to be be preferred, naturally I shall defer to that opinion, adding a note underneath the heading (as previously mooted, though nobody took me up on it) to indicate that the list refers to the sources on which the article is based. This would satisfy my point that this information is extremely helpful when combating cranky interventions. --PL (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec) And I've reverted you back, PL. At this point, there is a clear consensus against your position. As I said, go ahead and pursue dispute resolution. But until you can show a change in consensus, the article should read as all other editors have suggested. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. So I have duly added the introductory note mooted. Now let's see whether anybody else wishes to comment. --PL (talk) 09:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

We should consider both the reader and the editor. Most people who arrive at this page will just read it, not everyone who comes here intends to add their personal favorite sources and links. I think we shouldn't add meta-comments to the article itself. References sections on other articles don't need a clarifying comment that the references section is for references.

Invisible comments are often used in cases like this, where a comment should be displayed for (possible) editors only, not everyone who reads the article. I've added the comments both to the beginning and end of the references list. My phrasing may be a little awkward so feel free to tweak it, though I tried to make it newb-friendly.

(I also considered hiding the comment at the top of the external links section, but casual readers may find it useful to know that the links go to quality sites and not just any random ones.) — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 10:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

A bit arbitrary, but OK. I have tweaked your wording very slightly. I don't think your proposed 'External Links' wording fits the case, though. If editors get the impression that they can add any old links, however inconsistent with the article, it will get flooded with crank sites, inappropriate bookspam etc., as it often has in the past. So I suggest sticking with 'This section is intended for links to sites consistent with the established facts reported in the article, not to sites that are mainly speculative or fictional in character.' In that way, editors are clearly warned. Merely informing them that the links are consistent wth it is unlikely to be enough. Whether you want to make it an invisible comment is up to you, but I suggest retaining that wording. --PL (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with PL that the heading 'Sources' is not just perfectly legal, but makes a neccesary point as it demonstrates the needed evidence we need when making academic statements. His definition of this also fits the case perfectly in my view. Sources have been shown to be effective in practice and are essential in academic studies, for example at universities. Happydebater (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, at my university, we called them references. The academic journals and books sitting on my desk use the term "references". No one is saying we shouldn't have references/sources--we're arguing about whether there is some special reason to use a non-standard term to head the section.

Back on the issue with notes, the References section note is properly put in a hidden comment. As for the EL note, I have no opinion. However, PL, one thing that you should know is that no matter what we put, "cranks" will inevitably put in their own fringe sites. To draw an analogy, on List of social networking sites, there's a note visible to readers, another more extensive note visible only to editors, and a big edit notice for editors of the talk page, all of which say that the list is limited to notable SNS; the hidden notes explicitly say that the site must have a WP article, or it cannot be added. But we still get several requests a week of people trying to add whatever they feel like adding. One thing that should be considered is semi-protection. I see that the article has been semi-protected many times; I also see that the majority of IP edits recently have been reverted. For a featured article which, by its very substance is likely to attract editors who either don't know or don't care about our policies, there's nothing wrong with long-term to indefinite semi-protection. I wouldn't recommend it right now, as the level doesn't seem too high, but the next time someone puts out a new book or creates a new TV show on the subject, if the problems pick up, I know I wouldn't be adverse to picking off the easy problems, at least. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of that, Qwyrxian, and take your point entirely. It's just that long experience suggests that it's useful to have a handy pre-reference, so as not to have to keep explaining the point all over again. --PL (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

My only point on sources, would be that references are based on 'sources.' But yeah it's difficult distinguishing between academic websites and fringe ones. There is a lot of mis-information being spread out there! Happydebater (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Death of Henry II of France

There is nothing in the article about this event? Wasn't this the event that gained Nostradamus a lot of notoriety after he (sort-of) predicted it? Or was that proven to be a hoax? 71.205.174.204 (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see the article. The first known mention of the alleged connection was made in 1614, 55 years after the event and 48 years after N's death -- while he himself adduced a different quatrain entirely (III.55), and then only after altering it! --PL (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Notredame?

The article says: "Jaume's father, Guy Gassonet, had converted to Catholicism around 1455, taking the Christian name "Pierre" and the surname "Nostredame" (the latter apparently from the saint's day on which his conversion was solemnized)."

Does this mean that Nostredame is an alternative French-language form of Notredame (i.e., "Our Lady")? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

'Nostre Dame' was the standard 16th century form of it (hence the reference to the saint's day). In his student days, Michel Nostradamus called himself in Latin 'Michaletus de nostra domina' (i.e. Mickey of Our Lady). --PL (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

External links: proposed general translation site

Recently the page http://www.neilixandria.com/index.php/The_Prophesies_of_Nostradamus was arbitrarily added to the article’s list of External Links without prior discussion here, contrary to our rubric, so I removed it. I then discovered that our existing translation site, Burak’s Nostradamus Repository, had unaccountably dropped off the radar, so I provisionally reinstated the neilalexandra page pending further discussion here as to its accuracy.

Certainly it leaves much to be desired, and incorporates much traditional disinformation. The usual ‘litmus paper’ verses are I:2, I:35 and X:72. In I:2, its translation of line 1 still speaks of ‘the tripod’s legs’, despite the fact that the verse mentions neither legs nor tripods: in I:35, line 4 still speaks (via an unhelpful, if traditional, excursion into Greek) of ‘two wounds’ instead of what the French actually says, namely ‘two armies’: and, contrary to reputable modern research, X.72 still renders Roy deffraieur (without apostrophe in the original 1568 editions) as ‘King of Terror’ instead of 'defraying/purveyor/steward King', and Roy d’Angolmois anagrammatically as ‘King of the Mongols’ (when no such ‘anagram’ is either implied or necessary, given that Angolmois/Angoumois is a well-known part of France).

Faute de mieux, I propose that we let the translation stand for now, in the hope that neilalexandria will update the translations in the light of reputable scholarship. Failing that, we shall probably have to remove it again, as we shall if the original translation site resurfaces again. --PL (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Re neilixandria.com see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#COI spam links by SPA Nphar. Evidently a questionable source for anything much - I suggest that the link be removed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely! Unfortunately, this leaves Wikipedia without a reliable English translation of The Prophecies -- but then it doesn't have a translation of Rabelais or Tolstoy, either, does it?! There are fairly reliable translations around (at least, much more so than the above!), but these are all currently protected by copyright. It's no good -- those interested are simply going to have to learn 16th century French! Better no translation at all than a frankly misleading one! --PL (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Nostradamus FAR

I believe the article is way off being of featured quality. It passed in May 2006 and clearly wouldn't pass today. It only has 44 sources, a poor biographical coverage and given the extent of the topic is a far from comprehensive account of Nostradamus and how people have interpreted him. If you browse google books for instance you'll easily find material which could be used to greatly improve this. As this article will be getting a lot of traffic over the next week or two I think having it as an FA will disappoint a lot of people. It is neither comprehensive or well-researched (given the wealth of material which could potentially be used), with basic source problems and lack of publisher details, failing several of the requirements for FA. I mean no disrespect to Jim or anybody else who got it this far but I'm pretty sure that this doesn't meet criteria and is obviously in need of a lot more research, content which might not have been available back then. I believe it should be submitted for FAR and delisted. I will leave a week to see if improvements start to be made, if not, I will be placing at FAR. Anyway I invite comments here on suggestions in how to improve this, possible sources which could be used and what exactly is needed for it to retain its FA status.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. You state:

1.It only has 44 sources

Have you considered that there may be only 44 sources of sufficient academic, peer-reviewed quality to be worthy of inclusion? Please list the sources that you feel have been omitted.

2.a poor biographical coverage

Once again, this rather assumes that more biographical facts are available, other than the myths and legends commonly published in the seer's name (most of them already referred to under 'Alternative views'). Please list the biographical facts that you feel have been omitted.

3.a far from comprehensive account of Nostradamus and how people have interpreted him

The same section ('Alternative views') has an account of how people have interpreted him that is probably well in excess of the strictly factual account that deserves mention in an encyclopedia article.

4.If you browse google books for instance you'll easily find material which could be used to greatly improve this.

No. What you'll find is a mass of material that is for the most part pure hokum, unsubstantiated by the facts. Please list the additional materials to which you feel this does not apply.

5.It is neither comprehensive or well-researched (given the wealth of material which could potentially be used) .

The 'wealth of material' is, I assure you, purely imaginary! Please list this material.

basic source problems and lack of publisher details

Publisher details could be supplied, given a bit of time, but first please cite the part of the Wikipedia rubric requiring that such details be supplied.

this doesn't meet criteria

Once again, please cite the criteria. The mere word 'obviously' won't do.

obviously in need of a lot more research, content which might not have been available back then

Please list this research. You certainly won't find any more up-to-date academic research among the works listed by Google, at least in English. As for the French research, the most recently published of any consequence is that by Dr Patrice Guinard and Dr Jacques Halbronn -- and something tells me you might not want to read the latter in particular or see it included in the article!

I suggest you review your criticisms in the light of the above. --PL (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To be succinct: what PL is saying is that we opted for quality over quantity, and the article is still well-represented and well-presented by that choice. Thank you. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Your book references lack publishing details and isbn numbers. References like "See Savonarola and Nostradamus text comparison" I don't think are acceptable. Book authors are not even in alphabetical order. Why? The FA criteria specifically says look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for guidelines, read Wikipedia:Citing sources#What information to include. It is possible that a lot of the books might be misleading and nonsense, but as a writer with a lot of experience writing and researching I'm amazed at your response that you think it impossible that more resources which are beneficial are missing. But that said, I wasn't aware that the authors of the article were still active on wikipedia, so the best solution to this might be to work with you to update it. But the problems are large. The Works section alone has just one source, with 5 completely unsourced paragraphs out of 6, the 1st, 3rd and last paragraphs are completely unsourced of Alternative views and the 4th has just one source and is rather large; that level of sourcing wouldn't even pass GA today let alone FA. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, the full publishing details montly need to apply, if at all, only to the References list (the rubric says 'typically', not 'always must be'). By way of explanation, the section of the text labelled 'References' was originally labelled 'Sources', because that is what they are -- the sources on which the article is based (the change of label was dictated by two editors whose reasoning I have never been able to understand!). They are, in other words, the reputable sources (and they need to be reputable!) that underlie the whole article, because most of them agree on most of the points made. The in-text references that refer to them therefore need only to refer to them, not to cite everything over again. The former could certainly be supplied with full publishing details, though! Feel free to alphabeticise it, too, if that's what you want to do.

Prime among these seminal sources is of course Brind'Amour, on whose merits virtually all of them agree. If you care to take a look at my User Page (which is dedicated to establishing which sources are reputable enough to be treated as sources for the article -- just as you are now attempting to do), you'll see a review of his researches. If, having read and studied him ('Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself' says the rubric), you agree with the review, then presumably you also agree that he sets the 'gold standard' by which all would-be sources should be judged -- i.e. they need

(a) to have an intimate knowledge of 16th century French, and Nostradamus's version of it in particular

(b) to have studied all the original editions and

(c) to be familiar with the contemporary archives

In addition, of course, they heed to have read and studied Brind'Amour, and to have taken on board his conclusions.

By no means all of your proposed sources meet all four criteria. In particular:

Boeser's book was the basis for his film of the same name: it is almost entirely fictional, and ludicrously so.

If you refer again to my User Page, you'll see that neither Reading nor Ramotti comes amywhere near reaching the required standard.

I don't know Doeden or McCann or Tom Jones or Busquet ('a Nostradamus-detractor', according to Benazra) or Harder or Scheck or Schlosser (Benazra, who devotes some four pages to him, says his book makes it hard to distinguish the true from the false and is full [with copious examples!] of biographical and bibliographical disininformation), but I suspect that they may not be much better. Having presumably read them (as per the rubric), I suggest that you provide us with detailed reviews of them, so that we can decide whether any of them merit inclusion, and if so as a basis for what.

Meanwhile, surprised as you may be that there is little more in the way of biographical information to be had, merely take a look at the reputable sources listed in the article. To be sure, there is plenty of would-be 'interpretation' and speculation, but I submit that there is no place for such things in a factual article on Nostradamus, not least because (a) they are highly subjective, (b) there are as many interpretations as interpreters and (c) they seldom agree. The most we can reasonably do is provide a one-paragraph summary covering the typical lines of speculation -- and you will find this under 'Alternative views'. A mere rag-tag of unassessed book-titles would tell readers nothing at all about Nostradamus. But if you include one, you should be listing all the 2000 or more other known editions and commentaries as well, despite the fact that all of them are fully catalogued by Benazra, who is already (along with my colleague Chomarat) on the list.

And incidentally, your earlier charge that the article's research isn't up-to-date suggests that you simply haven't read it. One of Lemesurier's titles, for example, dates from as recently as 2010 -- which probably makes it the most up-to-date piece of reputable English-language research currently available.

I suggest that you edit your proposed booklist below in light of the above (I don't have JSTOR), and then apply it to the article. I note that it isn't alphabetical! --PL (talk) 10:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Will work on it gradually. by up to date I mean which meets current expected FA standards. Lemesurier's books look good, indeed. I may be exaggerating in regards to how much biographical info might have been missed, maybe not much is really known about his life as such, but I'm not wrong that those paragraphs need at least a source to support them and that the referencing needs a revamp. I like to use Template:Sfn, I can help you add this if you like. Once the referencing is sorted out we can then consider the content and whether not it is indeed as comprehensive as you say it is.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Gradually is fine. At 76, I'm not really up to doing any instant descrambling myself any more -- and the requirements seem to have changed in the meantime! Best, in my view, if you first sort your list alphabetically -- though perhaps with Nostradamus at the top -- for use as a new Reference/Sources section (personally, I still prefer the latter, which says what it is), then remove Leoni (for the reasons stated on my User Page), then insert as appropriate where indicated in the text, and finally let me know what else you need. Standing by! --PL (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons greetings PL and Evil Genius Jim, otherwise known as SPECTRE agent number 2. Have formatted most of the refs. Some issues. Ref 3 and 18, which 2003 book do they refer to, I believe Lemesurier had two books out in 2003? It would be great if you have the book still and could add page numbers to the sfn notes for those books and any of the others. Just simply add p= into the sfn templates. Also curious about the "political axe to grind" line, looks closely paraphrased from here, although it might actually be the other way round and he nabbed it from your article. Can you clarify? ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Like you, I shall have to work on this gradually.

The 'political axe to grind' line is straight from me. What it's doing under 'Leoni' (long dead) I can't imagine (you could, if you like, put in a reference, after 'Halbronn', reading: 'See his many papers in Benazra's academic forum at http://ramkat.free.fr/analyse.html)! As for the rest, I'll start by looking at references [3]. Except where otherwise stated, they are to 'The Unknown Nostradamus'. Using Find, I see (in order):

predictive power pp 150-2

siblings 143-6

faculty library 2

6338 'Nostradamus Bibliomancer' pp.23-5

vulnerable 125-130

Provencal 99-100

Chavigny 137

Videl 236-248

prophet 109

Birague 109

his book 100

doubtful 98

Letter 41 225-229

Mirabilis xii-xviii

Hitler 'Nostradamus Bibliomancer' p.36

after the event " " 28-30

I'll look at references [18] later, but as you can see, it'd be a long job to add any further page-numbers, and I'd almost certainly make a complete dog's breakfast of it if I tried to insert them myself -- so I'm rather hoping you'll excuse me both!

Anyway, see how you get on with the above for a start! --PL (talk) 11:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, here are the references for [18], both to 'The Unknown Nostradamus':

excellent passim

decree 124

Meanwhile, I see there are rather a lot of [6]s. In sequence, these should read:

for the future The Unknown Nostradamus 144-8

genre 144-8

academics Nostradamus Bibliomancer 26-45

academics TUN 144

1523). The Nostradamus Encyclopedia 24-5

birth NB 59-64

birth [delete duplicate ref]

If you insist on my finding other page-numbers, I suggest that first priority should be given to those refs with the most repeats. Care to suggest a batting-order? --PL (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's another bunch, this time for reference [5] (Leroy)

solemnized). 24

1523). 32-51

Agen. 60-91

Italy 62-71

sons. 110-133

codicil. 102-106

material passim

academics passim

And finally, the references for [8] (Brind'Amour, 1993):

one year old. 545, citing Benazra

Durance. 130, 132, 369

birth 326-399

originals 14, 435

future 70-76

Crinitus 100, 233-5

occasions (can't find it! Delete -- the quotes suffice!)

material passim

academics passim

event. 267

That appears to cover the main ones. Will that do? --PL (talk) 10:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Unknown Nostradamus: 500th Anniversary Biography or The Unknown Nostradamus: The Essential Biography for His 500th Birthday?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done -- you seem to have been working hard! Same difference, but I would suggest the second one, since that's what the title page says. --PL (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Seem to have uncovered it, but you should carefully check each one to see I got the right book., page 144 for instance seems a coincidence of both the 2003 and 2010s. Thanks for your assistance, much better now.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Can't see anything wrong there. But in the Bibliography (which is supposed, as I explained earlier, to be a list of the reputable sources on which the article is based) you seem to have introduced (unless it was somebody else who did it) a whole lot of titles that we haven't discussed, most of which are a positive disgrace, and certainly don't add to the reader's sum factual knowledge of Nostradamus. Among others these are:

Austin, Joanne P.; Guiley, Rosemary Ellen (1 March 2008). ESP, Psychokinesis, and Psychics. Infobase Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7910-9388-7. [subject evidently irrelevant to what Nostradamus actually did]

Cannon, Dolores (1992). Conversations With Nostradamus: His Prophecies Explained. Ozark Mountain Publishing. ISBN 978-0-9632776-3-3. [a TOTAL disgrace, and demonstrably rubbish! See review on my user page.]

Cheetham, Erika (1 July 1989). The Final Prophecies of Nostradamus. Perigee. ISBN 978-0-399-51516-3. [intolerably superstitious, highly subjective and, as Randi points out, contains so many basic errors that it would take a whole book to correct them!]

Garencieres, Theophilus de (1672). The True Prophecies, Or Prognostications of Michael Nostradamus. T. Ratcliffe.[very interesting, but old hat!]

Gouron, Marcel (1957). Matricule de l'Université de médecine de Montpellier: (1503-1599). Université de Montpellier. Faculté de Médecine, Librairie Droz. ISBN 978-2-600-02983-4. Retrieved 28 December 2012. [content unknown, but facsimiles of his 'immatriculation' are already displayed in Lemesurier 2003 and 2010]

Kuzneski, Chris (15 October 2009). The Prophecy. Penguin Adult. ISBN 978-0-14-103708-0. [sounds more dramatic than informative!]

Leoni, Edgar (8 September 2000). Nostradamus and His Prophecies. Courier Dover Publications. ISBN 978-0-486-41468-3 [please see my user page].

Ovason, David (31 May 2012). The Secrets Of Nostradamus: The Medieval Code of the Master Revealed in the Age of Computer Science. Random House. ISBN 978-1-4481-0879-4. [see my user page: as per the article, there is NO medieval code]

Robb, Stewart (1961). Prophecies on World Events. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation. [if the article itself is to be believed, it is doubtful whether Nostradamus predicted any, and I seem to recall that Robb's work is pretty disreputable anyway!]

Sharma, Ashok Kumar (1 January 1993). World - Famous Prophecies & Predictions. Pustak Mahal. ISBN 978-81-223-0551-7 [hardly sounds like a reputable academic study, does it?!].

Stableford, Brian (30 August 2009). The A to Z of Fantasy Literature. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 978-0-8108-6829-8. [speaks for itself, doesn't it?!]

Please delete these and all reference to them, unless you propose to add your own 'bibliography of shame'! ;) I would rather not do this myself, in case I mess up any of your reference-links. --PL (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you truly understand what is needed for FA today. It is not acceptable to have unsourced paragraphs. I will remove my additions on the premise that you'll replace all with sources you deem "respectable". Please ensure that all paragraphs are sourced. I can can see that any attempts to improve this would be shot down as not credible so I'll let you do the honours. Cheers.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice too many additions from you, apart from your excellent page-references, which are fine, and should not be removed (I find it difficult to understand this reaction!). If you're referring to my removal of your Sharma reference, the only remotely contemporary reference to N's height and hours of sleep is the somewhat unreliable Chavigny (1594 -- which is already some thirty years late) -- and he doesn't specify either of the details mentioned.

As I explained earlier, all paragraphs are based on the reputable sources listed. I have already listed for you the proposed criteria for 'reputable', which are those that have been applied throughout: i.e. their authors need

(a) to have an intimate knowledge of 16th century French, and Nostradamus's version of it in particular

(b) to have studied all the original editions and

(c) to be familiar with the contemporary archives

In addition, of course, they heed to have read and studied Brind'Amour, and to have taken on board his conclusions.

Few, if any, of the further sources that you have suggested meet these criteria, so you may well be right in supposing that any attempt on your part to amplify the references might well prove less than satisfactory. We all have our limitations!

If if you require further sourcing of particular paragraphs, perhaps you could help by identifying which ones still need it, and I'll take a look at them from tomorrow, even though I hadn't noticed from other articles that every paragraph was sourced -- in fact it would be rather difficult, since any given paragraph can contain a range of information from different sources.

I have just had a preliminary look at the text, and can discover very few paragraphs that are not already perfectly adequately sourced, so any further guidance from you would be appreciated. --PL (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I had begun working on it, yes, trying to verify some of the claims made. If I go through and add cite tags where I believe they're needed can you try to add sources? Just copy the example of the others, sfn|author|year|p= ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Can you draw my attention to them in some way? (re the main 'Alternative views' paragraph, please note that the works in question containing the views laid out have already just been listed, so there would be little point in listing them all over again!)How about a double question-mark within the edit, so that I can simply use Find on them? --PL (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added citation needed tags which you should be able to see in the article. Just source what you can. Once done we can see then what is left.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've done my best. You'd better check it. I've had to reinsert into the Bibliography (is that a wise term to use, given that it is actually a list of the article's Sources?) what I've listed as Lemesurier(2), which had gone missing. One or two of its elements need checking. --PL (talk) 11:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Books

I'll draw up a decent further reading/potential source bibliography over the next few days. If you've got JSTOR access there's a lot of journal articles which could be useful in JSTOR.

• Boeser, Knut; Brownjohn, John (1994). Nostradamus. Wings Books. ISBN 978-0-517-14910-2. Retrieved 16 December 2012.
• Doeden, Matt (1 January 2007). Nostradamus. Capstone. ISBN 978-0-7368-6760-3. Retrieved 16 December 2012.
• McCann, Lee (1941). Nostradamus, the Man who Saw Through Time. Farrar, Straus, Giroux. ISBN 978-1-60506-508-3. Retrieved 16 December 2012.
• Lemesurier, Peter; Nostradamus (1 April 1999). The Nostradamus Encyclopedia: The Definitive Reference Guide to the Work and World of Nostradamus. St. Martin's Press. ISBN 978-0-312-19994-4. Retrieved 16 December 2012.
• Jones, Tom (18 July 2012). Nostradamus. Dorrance Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4349-1823-9. Retrieved 16 December 2012.
• Reading, Mario (6 October 2009). The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 978-1-906787-39-4. Retrieved 16 December 2012.
• Ramotti, Ottavio Cesare (1 April 2002). Nostradamus-The Lost Manuscript: The Code That Unlocks the Secrets of the Master Prophet. Inner Traditions / Bear & Co. ISBN 978-0-89281-915-7. Retrieved 16 December 2012.

• Robert Benazra: Répertoire chronologique Nostradamique (1545–1989) Editions de la Grande Conjonction, La Maisnie, Paris 1990, ISBN 2-85707-418-2
• Pierre Brind'Amour: Nostradamus astrophile. Les astres et l'astrologie dans la vie et l'oeuvre de Nostradamus. Pr. de l'Univ. d'Ottawa, Ottawa 1993, ISBN 2-7603-0368-3
• Pierre Brind'Amour: Nostradamus: Les premières Centuries ou Prophéties. Droz, Genf 1996, ISBN 2-600-00138-7
• Raoul Busquet: Nostradamus. Sa famille, son secret. Fournier-Valdès, Paris (1950).
• Bernard Chevignard: Présages de Nostradamus. Présages en vers (1555–1567) 1ère éd. complète, Présages en prose (1550–1559) 1ère éd. (version Chavigny). Éd. du Seuil, Paris 1999, ISBN 2-02-035960-X (Teiledition der Prophezeiungen Nostradamus' aus dem restaurierten Manuskript von Chavigny)
• Michel Chomarat: Bibliographie Nostradamus. XVIe–XVIIe–XVIIIe siècles. Bibliotheca bibliographica Aureliana Bd. 123. Koerner, Baden-Baden 1989 (maßgebliche Bibliographie früher Ausgaben der Werke von Nostradamus)
• Jean-Paul Clébert: Prophéties de Nostradamus. Les Centuries: texte intégral (1555-1568). Dervy, Paris 2003 (umfangreiche Analyse und Textvergleich sämtlicher Quatrains)
• Michel Dufresne: Dictionnaire Nostradamus. Définitions, fréquence et contextes des six mille mots contenus dans les Centuries (édition 1605) de Nostradamus. Les Éditions JCL, Chicoutimi (Quebec) 1989, ISBN 2-920176-54-4. (etymologisches Wörterbuch der in den 10 Centurien benutzten Begriffe)
• Jean Dupèbe: Nostradamus: Lettres inédites. Travaux d'humanisme et Renaissance Bd. 196. Droz, Genf 1983
• Elmar Gruber: Nostradamus: sein Leben, sein Werk und die wahre Bedeutung seiner Prophezeiungen. Scherz, Bern 2003, ISBN 3-502-15280-2
• Edgar Leoni: Nostradamus – Life and literature. Including all the prophecies in French and English … A critical biography. 2 Bde. Nosbook, New York, NY 1961. Neuausgabe: Nostradamus and his prophecies. Bell, New York, NY 1982, ISBN 0-517-38809-X
• Peter Lemesurier: Nostradamus. The Illustrated Prophecies. O Books, Winchester 2003, ISBN 978-1-903816-48-6
• Peter Lemesurier: The Unknown Nostradamus. O Books, Winchester 2003, ISBN 1-903816-32-7
• Edgar Leroy: Nostradamus, ses origines, sa vie, son oeuvre. Trillaud, Bergerac 1972. Neuausgabe: Lafitte, Marseille 1993, ISBN 2-86276-231-8 (erste Biographie auf archivalischer Grundlage)
• Roger Prévost: Nostradamus, le mythe et la réalité. Un historien au temps des astrologues . Laffont, Paris 1999, ISBN 2-221-08964-2 (Untersuchung der prophetischen Quellen von Nostradamus)
• Frank Rainer Scheck: Nostradamus. dtv, München 2001, ISBN 3-423-31024-3 (knappe, aber seriöse Biographie)
• Louis Schlosser: La vie de Nostradamus. Belfond, Paris 1985
• Ian Wilson: Nostradamus: The Evidence. Orion, London 2003, ISBN 0-7528-4279-X

An exhaustive list, with many of the references being in either French or German, as is to be expected, and with none of the woo-factor charlatans mentioned.

Also PL brings up a key point: if the authors of proposed additional references are ignorant of Francais Moyen or early modern French there is little to recommend them: hence, potential sources are limited. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 16:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Others

Is Nostradamus the most famous prophecy-maker or are there others on par with him? Pass a Method talk 02:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Probably he is -- though not necessarily deservedly. Does the article suggest this? --PL (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you think of any other people mainly known for prophecy making? Pass a Method talk 10:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Native speakers, please!

From the article: "Most academic sources maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus's quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power." Is this sentence grammatically correct? Thanks for your attention. --E4024 (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I think so! --PL (talk) 16:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)