Talk:Nostradamus/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Relock article against vandalism

Now that the last lock has run out, isn't it time that a new lock was installed to protect the article against the vandals who have started to come out of the woodwork again? --PL (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The person itself and also the name of Adolf Hitler hyperlinked is inapropriate, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VLADIMIR Skokan (talk • contribs) 18:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, merely distasteful. Unfortunately he existed and loomed large on the world stage! --PL (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh no... Wikipedia must be left open so the vandals can corrupt all the information... lol. Dawnseeker2000 15:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not meaning to pry excessively, isn't the point here to allow edits, then revert if it's vandalism? You must have had vandalism problems, but I'd have to protest locking something that needs some fleshing-out...but it is a good entry as written.75.21.159.119 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If there's one thing this article needs, it judicious editing -- and a lot of it, so it amazes me you would keep people from doing that. (I'm not volunteering.) It's minimally informative; but the problem is that is very poorly written. There are whole paragraphs that don't seem to make any sense at all. And all the prosing on and on about the prophesies and their veracity (who cares?) is deadly. NaySay (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Views section

I'm having difficulty making sense of certain passages in this section.

Specifically, the section starts by saying that there is a range of literature, from the highly sceptical, academic debunkers to the "true believers". However it then goes on to say:

• "No two of them agree on exactly what he predicted, whether for the past or for the future." -- I presume this means no two of the "true believers" as the academic/debunkers wouldn't say that he predicted anything?
• "Many of them do agree, though, that particular predictions refer, for example, to ..." --Again, I imagine the academic/debunkers would not agree any such thing?
• " There is also a consensus that he predicted whatever major event had just happened at the time of each book's publication, from...." -- I imagine that ONLY the academics/debunkers would suggest this (not that he predicted any actual real event of course, but that it was always a very recent event that any "true believer" book would insist that he had predicted), as for the true believers to suggest this would surely massively weaken their "position".
• "these books and their many popular imitators were almost unanimous not merely about Nostradamus's powers of prophecy, but also about various aspects of his biography... He had been a descendant of the Israelite tribe of Issachar; ...in the course of his travels he had performed a variety of prodigies, including identifying a future Pope... he had successfully cured the Plague at Aix-en-Provence and elsewhere, etc." -- Again, I presume this only relates to the "true believer" books, as I dont imagine that any academic/sceptic authors would agree any such thing

Essentially I think the section needs to be much better structured and worded in order to make it clear which group of writers is being talked about at any given time.

Also, I think the section title is not terribly helpful, as it, to some extent, gives equal credibility to the "true believer's" and the academic/sceptic's viewpoints, and by Wikipedia's standards of reliability and credibility, the "true believer" stance has no credibility.

I know I'm very much coming to this with my own POV, i.e. that I don't believe that Nostradamus predicted a thing and that any belief to the contrary is mere superstition, so I wanted to flag these thoughts up before having a crack at a reworking of the section. I'm also aware that I don't have access to any of the literature from the references (other than what's available online) so was concerned that I might misrepresent a source.

Anyone have any thoughts before I get stuck in? Arthur Holland (talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. I have just made one or two slight amendments which, I think, may satisfy your criticisms and bring more clarity to a text which has suffered somewhat in the past from the attentions of editors who, while trying their best, simply didn't know the subject well enough to edit it knowledgeably. Re the section title, its inclusion was originally insisted on by various commentators in the interests of 'balance'. The fact is that there are many 'true believers', and so the fact (they argued) needs to be fully represented.

I trust that you are now happier with the text. Thank you, in any event, for your input. --PL (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that does clarify things -- thanks for that PL. I might still have a bit of a fiddle with the section, but if I do anything questionable, then by all means give me a shout and we can amend/revert. Arthur Holland (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! Possibly insert bracketed phrases such as '(it was claimed)' if you feel they're necessary. Important to keep the prophetic claims and biographical claims separate, though. --PL (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it's very, very badly written; almost impenetrable. NaySay (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Confusion over date of birth

I've added a photograph to the page (which I took myself from outside his St Remy home) which shows the officially recorded date of birth. This is also the date that is recored on his tomb, so I am not sure why the article is so ambivalent in recording two dates, the second of which does not seem to get much mainstream attention. Would it not be better for this article to give the birth date that is recorded on his birth place and tomb, with a footnote to explain that a different date has been proposed by Patrice Cunard, with a link that goes to his page. His argument appears to be that the record of his length of life may not be accurate, which -if true - would suggest a different date of birth. Has this argument been reproduced in any mainstream historical sources? Tento2 (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It would also be helpful if the page noted that the date 14 Dec 1503 is according to the Julian Calendar. A data source for this is: Brief Discours, Ianus Gallicus (1594): “Michel de Nostredame [...] naquit en la ville de Saint-Remy, en Provence, l'an de grâce 1503, un Jeudi 14 Décembre, environ les douze heures de midi”. (Michel de Nostredame [...] born in the town of Saint Remy, the year of our lord 1503, a Thursday, around 12 noon).

This clarifies that the Julian calendar is being referred to, even in 1594 (a few years after France officially adopted the Gregorian calendar), because 14/12/1503 is a Thursday in the Julian calendar but a Monday in the Gregorian (modern) calendar. The equivalent Gregorian date is 24 December 1503. Tento2 (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, there is no 'officially recorded' date of his birth (mainly because nobody knows!): the one on the plaque is merely the local council's reproduction of the generally accepted date, and his tombstone (contrary to your assertion) doesn't mention it, merely stating that he lived '62 years, 6 months and 17 days' (which in that case doesn't fit what Chavigny records, which is 10 days). The municipal archives simply don't refer, and Nostradamus is too 'disreputable' for mainstream historical sources to go into the question. Nevertheless, this subject is argued about endlessly by the commentators, reflecting the fact that there simply is no definite answer.

90 or so years after the event, his son Caesar gave 14th December. But then he was often inaccurate about his father -- as was Chavigny -- and a notorious romancer, while the date doesn't fit either what the tomb itself says or what other (contemporary) sources record, some dozen of which Guinard lists specifically, and all of which specify 10 days, and not 17. At very least, then, a note of caution is advisable, which I have done my best to reflect in your caption!

Agreed re specifying the Julian calendar, though -- even though there was, of course, no other calendar available at the time!--PL (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for improving the caption text of my image. With regard to the date on the tomb, perhaps I misunderstood a comment in the Guinard article "On peut voir à Sallon, dans l'Eglise des Cordeliers, le tombeau du fameux Michel Nostradamus, né à Saint-Remy, le 14 Décembre 1503, & mort à Sallon le 24 Juin 1565." (p.141) which I translated as "You can see in Salon, in the Church Cordeliers, the tomb of the famous Michel Nostradamus who was born in Saint-Remy, December 14, 1503, and died at Salon 24 June 1565." expecting this to be in reference to what was recorded on the tomb.

I have no problem with alternate dates being given, but believe Wikipedia should lean towards what is recorded in mainstream sources, giving details of the alternative views, but not giving them equal weight unless the mainstream sources do the same. It sounds like you think they do; in which case we can substantiate with something more than a link to a web page written in French?

On the other hand, I would be very happy to see that point expanded, so the reader understands why two dates are given. With the two dates being close together, an uninformed reader might just assume that one is given in the OS calendar and the other is given in the New Style. Perhaps this is something to be looked at?Tento2 (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point! I'll see it I can clarify. Re French sources, unfortunately virtually all of them are in French, rather as one might expect! I'm a bit uneasy about preferring 'mainstream' sources, though: what, after all, is 'mainstream'? Surely Wikipedia should prefer reliable sources -- which of course takes us back to what the contemporary archives say, rather than to what was later asserted, or what it has become popular to believe... --PL (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It's fine to acknowledge that the birthdate is in the Julian Calendar, because that was, as PL points out, the only one in use when he was born, and many readers are not familiar with the history of calendars. However, it is pointless and misleading to convert this to 24 December in the Gregorian Calendar. For starters, the Gregorian did not commence until 15 October 1582. Secondly, it did not apply retrospectively (4 October Julian was immediately followed by 15 October Gregorian, and earlier dates were not converted). It's possible to play a mental game and work out what some earlier date would have been in the Gregorian calendar had the Gregorian calendar been in application back then - but it wasn't. Scientists sometimes use the proleptic Gregorian calendar for their arcane purposes, but historians should never do so. This is no different from working out what Queen Victoria's age would be today had she not died in 1901. Trivial, meaningless and unencyclopedic. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it's unnecessary to give the Gregorian calendar if the page shows that the Julian calendar is being used. (The reason for checking, even though the birth is before the adoption of the GC, is that the sources which detail his date of birth are published after the calendar change, so it is to verify they are recording the Julian date and not one that has accommodated the changes). The Gallicus reference I gave earlier was published in 1594, but fortunately, the reference to the time and day of the week removes any doubt.

But on that point, why do we assume that there is no officially recorded date of birth when it was recorded in 1594, along with the details of the day of the week and the time of birth? To Nostradamus, an astrologer, and those who knew him, these sorts of details carried a lot of significance, and if someone has recorded the time of birth, they have done something more than count back the number of days from the date of his death. I am including here a visible Google books link to Pelletier's 1867 work which reproduces Chavigny's Brief Discourse, as this would appear to be a good supporting reference for the December 14 date: |

With regard to sources, the article text currently says "depending on the source, 14 or 21 December 1503", yet I struggle to find any references (except the one given here or pages that reproduce this Wikipedia text) to the proposed alternative of 21 December. If you run a search through Google books and Google scholar, with the search term Nostradamus, born December 1503 you will see what I mean. It looks like we are comparing most of the published and historical sources against one alternative. I am fine with the idea of noting the generally recorded date with a footnote that explains the alternative view, but believe we should be leading with the mainstream account - until or unless the proposed alternative is given independent attention and recognition in reliable mainstream sources. Tento2 (talk) 09:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it matters at all if the sources we refer to are published in French, but would expect to be able to reference a matter of historical significance in a published book or journal of repute. To summarise, what I would like to propose is that the text in the lede gives only the 14 December date, (as that which is currently most widely accepted), but incorporates a reference to a newly created footnote in the 'notes section' which could translate the Chavigny report, explain that the date is according to the Julian Calendar, whilst explaining that there is some controversy about the date, give the alternative there and include the link to the research on the Cura site. I think that would be much less confusing than giving two dates and also informative for those who want to explore this matter further Tento2 (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither Chavigny (1594) nor Le Pelletier (1867) can be regarded as reliable sources -- and certainly not 'official' ones -- given the number of false details that they report. The article already lists the most reliable, reputable sources (q.v.) -- and you will see that their names are not among them.

Guinard's version doesn't merely refer to 'one alternative'. It specifically cites some dozen different archival descriptions of N's original tomb (not the present, 19th century one), dating from between 1614 and 1804, all of which state that its epitaph stated his age at death as 62 years, 6 months and 10 (not 17) days. One of them is by Caesar himself. So far as I know, Guinard is the only one who has researched this point exhaustively. If no Google report has yet caught up with him or with the original tomb, this doesn't alter the fact that these reports therefore score both in number and therefore in likely reliability -- and thus, inevitably, in archival repute. If anybody should be relegated to the sidelines, it is therefore Chavigny and his followers (with their 14th December birth-date), not the many independent witnesses to the original tomb (with their consequent 21 December one).

But then I don't know what's wrong with your Google app., since the most recent of the reputable works listed by the article (Lemesurier, 2010) states specifically (p. 9): 'Michel de Nostredame was born in mid- or late December 1503 (either on 14th or 24th, depending on which historical report of his original tombstone you choose to believe)' -- '24th' being evidently a typo for '21st'.

I hold no particular brief for Dr Patrice Guinard , but his work is considerable, and 'CURA' stands for 'Centre Universitaire de Recherche en Astrologie'.

(Oh, and BTW, Nostradamus wasn't an astrologer, as both you and the plaque put it -- but that's another subject. It does, though, perhaps cast some doubt on whether your recent photo should be there at all, given that of the three 'facts' it offers, one is wrong and the other two are distinctly doubtful -- which was why I didn't include my own rather clearer image of it years ago!)

I have to say that I see little point in pursuing this song-and-dance over a detail that cannot be reliably determined anyway! --PL (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so Nostradamus wasn’t an astrologer? I wish you had put me straight on that before I wasted my time travelling to the library at Arles to view by appointment the documents they house on his astrological charts and his astrological judgements. Not everything is about the quatrains you know. Some authors may want to suggest that he was not a very good astrologer, but that he was known for being an astrologer, and that he was consulted for astrological advice, and gave judgements based on astrological charts is a fact; and although it may irritate you that the authorities in St Remy have chosen this title as the one they feel best summarizes the reputation of their celebrated son, it is not done out of ignorance. I can assure you that in that region there is a great deal of excellent historical research which continually seeks to verify the details of his life.

I saw your post yesterday and decided that you’ve ceased being open to discussion (for whatever reason, it seems very emotive to me). However, you keep amending your post and becoming more extreme in your arguments, to make it seem like the 14th December date is the one that should be treated as a controversial alternative, despite your earlier admission (now edited out of the thread) that none of them [the reliable sources] specifically question the '14 December' date. (I agree with this; hence, I see no reason why that point cannot be qualified by reference to a source that does not dispute it, without the need for a “song and dance”).

None of the archival descriptions of N's original tomb record the date of 21 December 1503, though your post makes it sound as if they do. The speculation regarding this date is only based on an arguments concerning the reported length of his life, and there are several good reasons why that, taken by itself, is an unreliable method for revising a date of birth which is otherwise widely reported. Chavigny is a relevant source on a point that is sufficiently reported to have a recognition that is not in dispute, as being one of the earliest sources that describes that reported date of birth in detail. It is for that reason that a reference to his comment would add value to this page.

I know that 'CURA' stands for 'Centre Universitaire de Recherche en Astrologie', and also know that it is not a university, or any kind of official centre, but a private project established by Patrice Guinard - which does not take away from the respect I have for him, his work and his research. But please don’t try to make it sound more authoritative than it is, or suggest that his article has settled the matter whether mainstream sources or other authorities have taken it up or not. Wikipedia aims to report the mainstream view, not conduct original research to put right what the rest of the world is reporting. It should ‘follow the sources’ and currently the majority of the sources report one date, whilst hardly anyone reports the other. And in this instance Lemesurier (2010) is not a reliable source for supporting the proposed date of 21st December, since he doesn’t mention that date, which may be due to him making a mistake, but nonetheless eliminates him from being considered the most reliable source on this particular point. If this makes me sound like I am rejecting the possibility of the date being subject to dispute, rest assured that I am not. I am happy to see that research being conducted, happy to see it being reported (and hopefully explained); but am struck by the way that what remains a minority view has been given equal weight here as if it has been given widespread academic approval and significant attention in reliable mainstream sources.Tento2 (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

'Astrologer' (as most people understood the term at the time) meant a specialist who was academically qualified in the subject, could calculate the ascendant, draw up reliable birthcharts, know the difference between houses and signs, reliably put the planets in the right ones, draw up planetary ephemerides, adjust astrologers' published figures for clients' place and time of birth and produce half-accurate horoscopes on that basis. As Brind'Amour (1993) points out in his Nostradamus astrophile (the term actually applied to himself by Nostradamus), Nostradamus could do none of these, but instead specialised in doing 'psychic readings' of other people's birthcharts (which is why he usually asked his clients to supply their own). This is no doubt why he attacked (and was attacked for incompetence by) the astrologers. Have you read and digested Videl (1558), Brind'Amour (1993) et al. on the subject, or the relevant chapter in Lemesurier (2010)? Until you have, please don't be tempted to discuss it further here, not least because this board is purely for discussing the article, not its subject.

Regarding 'research in the region', the pre-eminent archival researcher was, of course, Dr Edgar Leroy of St-Paul-de-Mausole -- though much has been done by Brind'Amour, Benazra and Halbronn since -- and he is rightly one of the article's basic sources. Have you read and understood him?

I admit to updating my reponse in order to make it as accurate as possible. Sorry if you found this confusing.

Fortunately or unfortunately, democracy (i.e. widespreadness) is not a valid criterion for judging academic facts: on that basis, no new research would ever be featured. If a dozen or so sources (all named) report a tombal inscription recording the exact length of N's life, and the date of his death is known, ergo the date of his birth is known, too, at least as far as the tombal inscription is concerned. Whether that is accurate nobody can know, but Chavigny is no way of 'settling' the matter, given his abysmal record of fiddling the evidence, and the fact that numerous subsequent commentators follow either him or the 19th century inscription hardly adds weight to his conclusions. So -- have you read and thoroughly understood Guinard's article? If so, perhaps you would care to offer a digest of it here, so that others less linguistically gifted can assess it for themselves and come to some kind of informed conclusion on the matter?

No, Wikipedia does not aim to 'report the mainstream view', nor to 'conduct original research to put right what the rest of the world is reporting'. It does, though, aim to report reliable research of whatever type or period, even when it is very much non-mainstream (as much of the current article thankfully is). Hopefully the article does just that, but if you can think of a better way of helping it to do so, please say so -- preferably without adding unjustified weight to views that, in the light of history, can be shown to be, at best, inconclusive.

Until then, may I commend you for your commitment to the subject, but respectfully suggest that we drop it for the time being?--PL (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

(PS Consider the current state of the article: at the top it airs both dating possibilities, as it is bound to. Then, further down, your photo gives prominence to the date you want it to give prominence to. Isn't that good enough for you?) --PL (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for not responding sooner PL; I was away for the weekend. I did manage to read your post before I went away and have reflected on how much contribution you have made to this page, and the obvious effort that has been made overall to keep the content as neutral and factual as it can be. I appreciate the amendments you have made which offer an explanation of the date controversy, and that you are not opting to eliminate references to N's reputation as 'astrologer', which was a valid part of his repute (in my view, too understated already). There is no doubt that N knew how to draw up charts (and all the things you mention above). Apart from the horoscopes (or natal charts), and almanacs, Nostradamus was well versed in the traditional rules of judicial astrology. For this, he would inevitably attract the criticism of some astrologers who did not approve of judicial astrology, since astrology historically held an internal conflict concerning when it ceased to be objective and scientific (known as 'natural' astrology) and when it inclined towards divination through prediction of future events (known as 'judicial' astrology). It was only the natural use of astrology that was safe from attacks of the church; the latter often attracted controversy and its practice could be dangerous due to its supposition that the future (or the mind of God) could be foretold. Judicial astrology was the specialty of the 17th century English astrologer William Lilly, but no one doubts his reputation as one of the most notable astrologers in history, despite the criticism he frequently attracted from some of the other astrologers of his time. In the horary chart judgement that Nostradamus was commissioned to give concerning the whereabouts of silver stolen during the riot at the Notre Dame, Orange, he challenges those with knowledge of the subject to consider his chart and the judgement he has made of it, saying: “What I write you is according to astronomical judgment and, I declare, lacking in offence to anyone in this world. I am human and can err, be wrong and be deceived; nevertheless, be there anyone in your city familiar with the astronomical doctrine extending to the judicial, by the figure let him judge if he understands not that my saying contains the truth”. We have a copy of his letter (reproduced in 1714) which is housed in the archives at Arles and no one disputes its authenticity. We also have a copy of the original chart, and comparison of the two easily establishes that what he judges regarding the thieves and the fate of the silver (melted down, never to be found again) is according to rules found in reputable medieval works such as the Liber Astronomiae of Guido Bonatti. Nostradamus is correct in saying that those who have good knowledge of his subject can see that he has judged according to astrological rules and not simply employed his intuition. There is much research still to be undertaken on N's general use of astrology, (by which I mean unrelated to his Quatrains), so at this point I think the page is neutral and strikes an even balance.

You might want to check the text regarding his date of death. The introductory sentence in the lede tells us that he died on 2nd July 1566, but the section '1.5 Final years and death' explains:

On the evening of 2 July, he is alleged to have told his secretary Jean de Chavigny, "You will not find me alive at sunrise." The next morning he was reportedly found dead, lying on the floor next to his bed and a bench (Presage 141 [originally 152] for November 1567, as posthumously edited by Chavigny to fit what happened)

This makes it sound as if he made the report on the evening of the 2nd, but died on the morning of the 3rd; though I imagine this is due to the fact that days did not begin at midnight as they do in our civil calendar and this might be helped by an explanation. I am not convinced by the argument that Chavigny reported a false date of birth to give N a better horoscope as per Guinard's argument, mainly because it does the opposite (and it would be much more 'meaningful' for an astrologer to be born on the notable date of the 21st December, the winter solstice, than the non-descript date of the 14th). I'll decline your invitation to summarize Guinard's arguments, though, since his exploration of the inconsistencies gives us much to think about, but I feel that he has placed the emphasis where he wants his own argument to be, and has given very light treatment to the details that support the record of the 14th December. To summarize this would open up a can of worms for me, and I think it probably is better that I drop my interest in this point, for now, as you suggest, and thank you for the amendments you did make in response to my comments, as per the final remark in your previous post. Tento2 (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I do hope you will study Brind'Amour 1993, if you haven't already done so, where N's charts are analysed exhaustively, and their origins traced as far as possible -- including that for the Canons of Orange (pp. 383-6). (He is not impressed by the relation between chart and judgement, incidentally, even in terms of Bonatus's 'De astronomia', which is merely one of the tracts he considers.) You should likewise study the Avignon astrologer Videl (1558) on N's astrological competence. Your keenness on his astrological abilities deserves nothing less, and it should be right up your street!

Re N's death, his body was found 'cold' on 2nd, as stated, so the remark would have been made on 1st. I'll take a look at it. --PL (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Brind'Amour's 1993 book is out of print and seems very difficult to locate. But you are right, I would like to get a copy of that for my own interests. I see that the page makes no references to professor Gerson's 2012 text: Nostradamus: how an obscure renaissance astrologer became a modern day prophet of doom. Is there any reason why this is not considered a reliable source?

I have read Brind'Amour's article on the Cura site http://cura.free.fr/xxv/22brinda.html - so I understand the arguments about technical sloppiness, but this is not something that is so very unusual in astrologers of his era, especially amongst the practitioners that were more inclined towards judicial astrology than natural astrology. It only becomes a matter that attracts attention when the astrologer gathers repute for being a professional astrologer, as Nostradamus did. Brind'Amour does not dispute this, and the article on the Cura site commences by considering the ways that Nostradamus used astrology, highlighting his involvement with almanacs and mundane prognostications, and his professional practice of judicial astrology and the drawing up of birth charts for clients. It is the fact that Nostradamus was known for being an astrologer that makes the study of his astrological charts and horoscopes worth pursuing, and the technical inconsistencies and flaws worth noting. Contrast this with your statement, earlier in this thread, that Nostradamus was not an astrologer at all.

I noticed that the 'See also' link at the bottom of the page gives a wiki-link to 'List of Astrologers', but checking this list I see no mention of Nostradamus. The page history shows that you removed his name from the list yesterday with the comment "Nostradamus wasn't a fully-fledged astrologer: he merely used astrology". In that edit I think you are imposing your own views, based on criticisms of his technique that are reported in the sources, perhaps; but nonetheless contradicting what the sources (and history) reports. I'm curious what you think Nostradamus "merely used astrology" for - for the publication of almanacs and prognostications? For the professional astrological consultations he undertook for clients?? To build his own reputation of being an astrologer??? This really seems bizarre to me. I hope you will reconsider that edit, as one that would have Nostradamus turning in his grave (or his tomb ... whichever tomb we care to think about...). Otherwise, perhaps a new discussion should be started on this point, for which I hope you will be able to provide references from your sources which do more than criticize the technical details of his astrological work, but claim as you have, that Nostradamus never worked as an astrologer, and hence was never an astrologer at all Tento2 (talk) 10:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of Gerson's piece, and it's not one of the reputable sources on which the article is based, nor is it peer-reviewed by any of them.

As I explained, my statement about N not being an astrologer was made in the context of what the term meant at the time. It is based on the analyses by Videl (1558 -- 'Of true astrology you understand less than nothing'), Brind'Amour (1993 -- 'Les horoscopes... laissent beaucoup à désirer'), Wilson (2001 -- 'his astrological methodology was incompetent, even a disgrace'), Gruber (2003), Clébert (2003 -- 'Nostradamus n'était pas un bon astrologue'), Lemesurier (2010 -- 'Nostradamus, in short, was not an astrologer') et al -- all of them among the reputable sources listed -- though both Bd'A and Gruber are prepared to let the term stand, if only in a limited sense, despite the famously catastrophic horoscopes for Suffren and Crown Prince Rudolf (!).

Re 'technical sloppiness', Bd'A (whose book you may be able to obtain from Salon) points out that, of N's 14 known charts taken from professional astrologers, not one contains any material errors whereas, of the 14 known to have been erected by himself all except one contain whole rafts of them (planets in wrong houses etc.). Even the one for the Canons of Orange contains several.

If you wish to restore Nostradamus to the list of astrologers, this is up to you, but it would hardly be justified by the article.

Finally, may I remind you (1) that this board is meant to be for the discussion of the article, not of Nostradamus and (2) that original research is not permitted in Wikipedia (see the clear rubric at the top of this board). If you wish to continue indulging in either, may I suggest that you do so in an appropriate forum in future (two are listed under 'External Links'), as I am no longer prepared to break the rules by discussing them here? --PL (talk) 16:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I would not wish to dwell on anything that has no relevance to the content of the article. I have not denied that authors have criticized N's astrological work, but of the quotes you have given, (putting aside the inflamed attacks of Laurens Videl, since barely any published astrologer of that period did not attract criticisms from rival astrologers) only Lemesurier presents a comment that could be interpreted to suggest that Nostradamus was not an astrologer. This is clearly not the view that the quoted comments are making in their criticisms that he was a sloppy astrologer (with regard to technicalities). The Canons of Orange example is actually quite robust once the copyist errors have been removed, but rather than run the risk of breaking rules by explaining my response to your remark, I will simply restore his name to the list of astrologers and add an appropriate category to this page.

Re your comment on Stéphane Gerson's Nostradamus: How an Obscure Renaissance Astrologer Became the Modern Prophet of Doom ...

I've never heard of Gerson's piece, and it's not one of the reputable sources on which the article is based, nor is it peer-reviewed by any of them.

Perhaps because Professor Gerson's work is so recent? This is one of two books he has published on Nostradamus within the last 12 months and has had very good reviews, being described as "immaculately researched". I mention this only because you suggested Lemesurier's 2010 book should be considered the most recent reputable English-language book on Nostradamus, which suggests that this has not been considered, or has not been considered reputable. Tento2 (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That may well be the reason. But we can't add new sources just because they have just come out -- not even from my old publisher, St Martin's. Time is needed for the book to become better known. The reviews look promising, though we need some from specialists in the field (i.e. peer-reviews) -- after all, it looks as if the book claims, among other things, that N was trained as a doctor (for which, pace the Maison de Nostradamus's understandable propaganda and that of his publishers, I know of no direct evidence, given that he was kicked out of medical college). Nevertheless, Gerson seems cultured and writes well, even though he doesn't seem to evaluate the man's astrological skills -- merely his presentational ones. It'll be interesting to find out more... --PL (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

PS I just discovered Gruber's missing assessment of N's astrology (I knew it was there somewhere!). Obwohl er miserabel war in der Anwendung der mathematischen Grundlagen der Astrologie, nicht einmal simple Interpolationen durchführen konnte and nicht verstand, nach welchen Zeitmassen die Ephemeriden konstruiert waren, galt er als [i.e. " he passed for"] genialer Astrologe. (savour the irony!!) --PL (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that seems a relevant summary. To keep the point clear for the sake of other editors, he is basically saying that despite being miserable in the mathematical principles needed for accurate chart construction, Nostradamus came to be considered [or passed into public consciousness as] a brilliant astrologer. That's about the gist of it and the view I think most commentators adopt. Tento2 (talk) 11:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you could be a little more accurate and idiomatic, and be more careful not to mislead editors about what Elmar actually says (perhaps German isn't your bag?): 'Although he was lousy at applying astrology's basic mathematics, couldn't even undertake simple interpolation, and didn't understand the temporal basis on which the ephemerides were put together, he passed for a brilliant astrologer.' That certainly sums it up! --PL (talk) 16:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can see that I gave the basic gist of the remark. Since posting I have come to realize that you are the author of the book you keep referring to. The source which supports the arguments you make here, on points that are not made by other reliable sources. I have no more to say now, except you should be more transparent when backing up your arguments by reference to yourself. I feel my time has been wasted in the necessity of clarifying that Nostradamus was indeed an astrologer - a point that should never have been up for dispute in the first place. Tento2 (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Having now studied Gerson's book (see review on my talk page) I propose adding it to the article's bibliography. Any objections? --PL (talk) 09:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Nicodemus

Why do you find it pointless? I find your revert pointless *sigh*. --Shandris^{the azylean} 19:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that Nostradamus is often confused with Nicodemus? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Well I thought Nicodemus was the one who predicted stuff, turns out it wasn't him at all :) --Shandris^{the azylean} 23:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Where can I find such 'evidence'? I'm just thinking what's best for people visiting Nicodemus, while actually looking for Nostradamus. --Shandris^{the azylean} 12:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Do they ever? I've never heard of anyone doing that. I mean, they can Google him... --PL (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Nostradamus astrology real science

Michel Nostredame gives the formala hint in a public epistle: Que toutes ces figures ∫ont iu∫temêt adaptees par les diuines lettres aux cho∫es cele∫tes vi∫ibles, c'est à sçavoir, par Saturne , Iupiter , & Mars ,[241] & les autres conioincts [...] first published about 1558 A.D. Nostradamus tells us he uses visual astrology ('cele∫tes vi∫ibles,' lit. visible universe), not tropical astrology, for his poems.

http://bookoflife.org/gamma/OI/oi_vii.i.f.htm this is a the major war codex from Nostradamus. You or anyone in the world can now predict any large game shifting war in history forward and backward based soley upon nostradamus' own claim in his public writings. Just because one gets a masters or studies N for 30+ years does not nor will it ever imply they have intelligence.

Nostradamus did not need to create houses and charts and stuff as this is astronomical, as he has pointed out ('cele∫tes vi∫ibles) , ref. to Aussie visable modern astrologer, Bernadette Brady for bring back this concept.

If you have not been able to figure this out you need to get out of Nostradamus all together, otherwise you work for Satan's Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.25 (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

As you can see for yourself via the article's External Links, Nostradamus published umpteen astrological charts that did indeed feature houses and signs, all based on tropical, not sidereal astrology. But then this is not the place for bookspam anyway! --PL (talk) 09:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Using a picture to stand in for article text

Currently, in the section "Origins of The Prophecies", there is a section that reads:

His rejection of the title prophet is consistent with the fact that he entitled his book [PICTURE OF TITLE] (a title that, in French, as easily means "The Prophecies, by M. Michel Nostradamus"—which is what they were—as "The Prophecies of M. Michel Nostradamus", which, except in a few cases, they were not, other than in the manner of their editing, expression and reapplication to the future).

I changed this to have the actual title in text and moved the picture to the right [1]. However, this change was reverted - without comment - by PL [2]. Using a picture to stand in for article text is a a very bad idea for a number of reasons: 1) It breaks the flow of the text itself. People are not accustomed to reading article pictures as part of the article text itself. 2) It breaks accessibility for those using screen reading software that can't read the text in the picture. For those users, the sentence would make no sense at all. 3) It breaks the sentence for those who, for whatever reason, are reading the page without images. 4) The text in the picture is not searchable. 5) It is confusing in general, especially considering that the picture has a caption, which I gather is not supposed to be read as part of the article text, only the picture's content. Also, it is explicitly against the the manual of style. Per WP:BRD, I'd like to open a discussion on why anyone would think this is preferable. Niamh (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, didn't realise you'd retained the pic, so your version restored. Seems an extraordinary amount of fuss to make about a minor detail, though, given that the rubric merely says almost always, and that the article has been that way for years!--PL (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It is only minor when it doesn't negatively impact you personally. :) Thanks for restoring it. Niamh (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

April 2014 vandalism

Can an admin please step in and protect this page? It's been targeted with the same pro wrestling-related vandalism repeatedly today. Damon Killian (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it needs total protection for the time being, until the still-continuing vandalism stops (people out there are reproducing the vandalised text as if it were genuine). Either that or automatically block anybody who perpetrates it. --PL (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Hy Celestra, I try to fulfill all your requests...

quien está actualizando su página Sr?

Ya llegaron demasiado lejos y ahora les toca dar cuenta Gloriamacia (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is the English version. Check the appropriate language in the LH margin? --PL (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

TROLL ALERT (Admin request)

Be warned -- a troll is on the loose with a very angry bee in his bonnet, attacking both the article and myself. Please block his efforts (see the attacks on me on the Discussion board) and re-protect the article. Until this has been done I am withdrawing my support for the article... --PL (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

External links to books

The Bibliography section contains external links to Google Books. This is sort of a bad idea for a couple reasons: Google Books is a commercial book seller even if these are "free" PD scans they have links to buy stuff; the quality of GB scans is generally poor; many/most of the books are available at non-profit scanning libraries such as Internet Archive which have higher quality scans; GB URLs often change or disappear, Internet Archive URLs are stable. -- GreenC 04:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed as requested. The list already contains our own versions.--PL (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2014

".... He was expelled shortly afterwards by the university's procurator, Guillaume Rondelet, when it was discovered that he had been an apothecary, a "manual trade" expressly banned by the university statutes,[12] and had been slandering doctors.[13] The expulsion document (BIU Montpellier, Register S 2 folio 87) still exists in the faculty library.[14] However, some of his publishers and correspondents would later call him "Doctor". After his expulsion, Nostredame continued working, presumably still as an apothecary, and became famous for creating a "rose pill" that supposedly protected against the plague.[15] ...."

The above paragraph is not the complete truth because Nostradamus after being expelled in date 3 octobre 1529 received the help of professor Antoine Romier and after 20 days from the expulsion he obtained to be reinscribed...

The source of the historical records is : "Seconde inscription retrouvée de Michel de Nostredame, en date du 23 octobre 1529, conservée à la Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire de Montpellier, registre S 19, f° 105 v : Nostradamus est inscrit dans le Livre du Procurateur (Liber procuratoris)."

Related info at the web page http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html and http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html</ref>

So i suggest the following new paragraph:

".... He was expelled shortly afterwards by the university's procurator, Guillaume Rondelet, when it was accused to have been an apothecary, a "manual trade" expressly banned by the university statutes,[12] and had been slandering doctors.[13] The expulsion document (BIU Montpellier, Register S 2 folio 87) still exists in the faculty library.[14] However, 20 days later, thanks to the help of professor Antoine Romier he obtained to be re-inscibed in the "Liber procuratoris" (BIU Montpellier, Register S 19 folio 105) and so he had the possibility to complete his study and become a Medical Doctor. ...."

Orsini Guglielmo (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Orsini Guglielmo

Question: Please only show a small amount of unchanged text so that one doesn't have to search for the changes. The first small change, changing 'discovered' to 'accused', results in an ungrammatical sentence. Can you explain the reasoning for this change. The new final sentence is also not grammatical but I am concerned about the content as well. I do not speak French, and google translate's attempt includes nothing which supports the change, but that could be google. Could you expand on what it is in the source which supports this change? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The last sentence should be omitted, as the 'second inscription' mentioned (scratched out by Rondelet when expelling him) states 'on the same day', which, when you examine the previous entry on the page in the Liber scolasticorum, is exactly the same date as his admission (23 October 1529). This is illustrated on page 49 of Lemesurier: Nostradamus Bibliomancer. The '20-day' canard is a very old one, based on the alleged researchers' evident inability to understand the Latin for '23rd'.--PL (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hy Celestra, I trimmed the above paragraphs under discussion and I post here my answers to your notes.

1) Nostradamus was expelled because he was accused to be involved in apothecary works, but we have no historical evidence about the correctness of the charge, so I personally think that is more suited the word 'Accused' than "discovered"

2) The French text reported above gives detailed evidence that the Universitary Library of Montpellier holds the proof about the Nostradamus re-inscription, precisely in the register "S 19", sheet 105 Related info at the web page http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html at the paragraph 'Le doctorat en médecine (1529 - 1933)' -second image-

3) You say ':The last sentence should be omitted, as the 'second inscription' mentioned (scratched out by Rondelet when expelling him) states...' but the 'scratched out' inscription isn't the 'second inscription' but instead is the 'first' in date 3 octobre 1529. Related info at the web page http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html at the paragraph 'Le doctorat en médecine (1529 - 1933)' -first image-

4) I don't have a copy of the book that you mention: Lemesurier - 'Nostradamus Bibliomancer' so I can only argue basing myself on the images and data shown on the linked web pages...

My English is not perfect so if the suggested changes are approved I kindly ask your help to pubblish correct sentences.....

A big 'Ciao' from Italy

Guglielmo

Extract from the book in question, pages 49-50:

As you can see for yourself, the entry immediately above Nostredame’s actually reads: Fuit conscriptus vicesima 3a [for tertia] octobris M[agister] Jud[remainder of name indecipherable]…, or ‘There was enrolled on the twenty-3rd of October Master Jud[ ]…’. This is followed directly by Nostredame’s entry, which reads: Eadem die fuit conscriptus M[agister] Michaletus de n[o]s[tr]a d[o]m[in]a…, or ‘On the same day was enrolled Master Mickey of our Lady…’ In both cases, of course, the title ‘Master’ indicates that the applicant was presumed already to have gained his necessary First Degree.

Thus, Nostredame’s name was entered into the Liber scolasticorum not twenty days before his registration but, as might reasonably be expected, on the self-same day, 23 October. A few days later he should by tradition have been paraded before the Chancellor to have his credentials examined. However, even before his lack of a valid First Degree diploma could be officially discovered, news evidently reached the ears of Rondelet, the Student Registrar, by way of the students and one of the city’s apothecaries, that the applicant had himself been an apothecary, and rude about doctors to boot. And so Rondelet was ordered to strike him off again, which he did forthwith. Possibly news of it never even reached the Chancellor himself, or a more formal expulsion would probably have been recorded. Thus, there was no reprieve. Nostredame was out on his ear and, so far as the Montpellier archives are concerned, never became a doctor in the first place.

OK? --PL (talk) 08:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Celestra I examined the extract you posted and I now understand the mention about the misunderstanded date... ...but some discrepancy still remains:

1) Try a search in Google "images" for the character "François Rabelais" and you will see that he wears the same hat as did Nostradamus in many historical paintings and book covers. I absolutely can't believe that on those times somebody could wear such a distinguishing hat without having a proper degree ! Today somebody can also publicly wear Papal dresses, but in the Nostradamus age things were for sure different.

2) How could he work as a doctor at the royal court of France and perhaps in some other, together with certified and high level doctors, without having a proper degree ?

3) How could he had the freedom to fight the plague giving medical help and prescribing drugs in regions and towns where, for sure, other official physicians were on duty ?

4) The extract you posted says "However, even before his lack of a valid First Degree diploma could be officially discovered...." so according to the author Nostradamus was also lacking of a "First Degree diploma" ! And he goes so easily without any hesitation to ask to be inscribed in the "liber scolasticorum" asking and obtaining also the protection of Antoine Romier ?!

5) The extract you posted says "And so Rondelet was ordered to strike him off again...." ...."again" ? He wasn't striked two times !

Resuming all I've the impression that despite many historical and tangible proofs about his role as doctor or physician, is everything deleted upon the affirmations presented in the book "Lemesurier - Nostradamus Bibliomancer". Moreover the term "bibliomancer" refers to individuals that give predictions thru the opening of books at random pages and according to the text present form the prediction.... that title is absolutely misleading and false when tied to Nostradamus...

At least, considering the present findings, I think that further investigation is needed...

If you agree I'm fully available to cooperate with you to find the truth.

Regards Guglielmo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.253.138.212 (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That may be your view, but Wikipedia isn't open to personal opinions or original research (try reading the rubric). The article, like all articles, is simply based on the published sources indicated in the Bibliography, of which Nostradamus, Bibliomancer is merely the latest and most up-to-date with its research. If you wish to criticise it, then perhaps the first step is actually to read it? If you then wish to discuss Nostradamus, this isn't the place to do it (read the rubric again). Try one of the forums listed under External Links?--PL (talk) 16:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Celestra, I read the initial part of the Lemeuriers' book and here are my last comments and observations:

Lemesurier in it's book writes : "...he (Nostradamus) was visited in 1564, in the course of a celebrated royal progress through the country, by the notoriously superstitious queen and her teenage son, the new King Charles IX, accompanied by a vast retinue. He was then summoned to attend them again in Arles, where he was reportedly honored by being made Privy Councillor and Physician in Ordinary to the King."

Despite this FACT Lemesurier asserts that Michel de Nostredame wasn't a physician... it's belivable that a queen, and mother too, puts his son in the hands of an "apothecary" raised at the level of Physician only "ad honorem" ? In the Bibliography is cited Robert Benazra and is known that he asserts that Michel de Nostredame finally was able to get the physician degree...

About the quatrain I.35 the Lemesurier says: "...with "d'or" simply the result of the compositor's mishearing of dehors ["outside," "separate"')...

"d'or" means only and simply "of gold", "the cage of gold" is simply the golden helm used by Henry II, that's an evident proof that the author is absolutely incompetent...

But I don't insist anymore, to me the PROOFS are enaf, and this is my last post. Any writer can affirm what he prefers, but on my point of wiev a official biography pubblished by world leading online service like Wikipedia has to present only facts supported by many official and reilable sources, so the "fact" that Nostradamus was only an apotechary has at least to be converted in "there are different opinions about the fact that he get the degree of physician..."

Thanks anyway for the time you dedicated to me

Regards

Not done: It is pretty clear that there is some disagreement about these changes. Please try to reach a consensus with the other editors before re-opening this edit request. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 15:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Not done per Older and ... well older. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

3O Response: I've declined the request for a third opinion made at WP:3O because too many editors are already involved. Stfg (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Here I can do no more than suggest that the complainant actually reads the book that he purports to be criticising, rather than basing his arguments on a brief summary that, clearly, cannot do the whole argument justice. His suggestion that some statement be included that "there are different opinions about the fact that he get [sic] the degree of physician..." is already covered by the statement in the text that various correspondents and publishers continued to call Nostradamus 'doctor'. His suggestion that the royal family wouldn't have trusted a non-physician is somewhat vitiated by the fact that Rabelais was a royal physician even before he became a qualified doctor (royals, at the time, could do anything they liked!). If reading the book still fails to convince him, fine -- but this board is supposed to be about the article, not one of my books, and is supported by a whole range of reputable sources, and not just the one or two (not on the list) that he cares to select. It would be wise for him to read them all! See http://nostrawiki.blogspot.co.uk/ --PL (talk) 09:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm off!

Well, after nearly ten years largely running this article (most of which I originally wrote), I've finally had enough of the trolls, the ignorant meddlers in star-spangled blinkers, the picky pedants anxious to display their barely acquired 'knowledge' and the determined ideologues who think their opinion is as good as anybody's and better than most. So I don't propose to edit the article any further -- which means that you and they can make as big a mess of it as you like in future. Good luck -- you might need it!--PL (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Nostradamus likely predicted you'd do this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Why Lemesurier ran off like a scared dog with his tail between his legs: https://storify.com/deltoidmachine/how-we-won-the-james-randi-dollar-1-000-000-parano — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.154.213 (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Please may admin again look into the repeated use of spam and abuse on this page! The discussions are meant to revolve around the 'facts' of the article itself and not groundless opinions or insults. Smithsurf (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

And what about the abuse hurled on Nostradamus by PL? You tolerate it because the man has been dead for 500 years! To this clown PL, Nostradamus was not even a doctor let alone a PROPHET! Lemesurier believes Nostradamus was a complete fraud trying to gain fame and money by outright lies and deception.

PL should serve as a warning: anyone who tries to debunk someone who lived 500 years ago is a FOOL!

An example of the hate literature published on Nostradamus by "Lemesurier" (who changed his name to French to sell his books on the NOSTRADAMUS name!) http://prophetofprovence.blogspot.co.uk/

"Lemesurier's" view of Nostradamus in a nutshell: http://thenostradamuspoem.blogspot.ca/

And this debunker get to write pretty well the entire Wikipedia article on Nostradamus without challenge. And the fools allow him, bringing doom on them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.154.213 (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

There is documented evidence which backs up PL's posts. As for nobody challenging him, maybe that is because his argument is too strong! PL does not think Nostradamus was a fraud, just that his method of prophesy involved history repeating itself and there is much evidence to support this. He is also not the first person to express this view. Therefore it is not 'his' theory and it came about as a result of previous academic research. Smithsurf (talk) 00:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

'Further reading'

You will find that Wilson now agrees with PL and has done even since he became aware of the new evidence (The Janus hypothesis; N. being expelled from medical school, etc). Also Lemesurier has not changed his theme as you mention, in over an entire decade! Smithsurf (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I am fully aware of PL’s previous books and their content.My point is that since he became aware of a lot of the new evidence regarding Nostradamus, he has had good reason to change his mind. People are allowed to alter their opinions and PL’s current opinions have remained the same since 1999. Thus, his previous books which you criticize came before that! I think you would agree that this is a long time ago now. As for your assertion that he has been changing his mind since the 1980’s… hmm he didn't even publish a book on Nostradamus until 1993. Any views on other subjects from the 80’s would therefore be irrelevant anyhow.

You mention Wilson, but when did he disrespect PL’s more recent views? It’s true he criticised in part ‘The Nostradamus Encyclopedia’ but that was a book from ‘1997.’ His opinion on PL’s ‘2010’ book is: "Peter Lemesurier’s Nostradamus, Bibliomancer provides much long-needed commonsense concerning the many myths and misconceptions surrounding Nostradamus’ famous prophecies, together with properly authoritative English translations that have hitherto been lacking. In an age in which popular television documentaries too often peddle mindless rubbish concerning Nostradamus, Peter Lemesurier’s authoritative, no-nonsense approach to the subject is both welcome and opportune. I wish that I had had his book available to me eight years ago!" (Note that Wilson’s first published book on Nostradamus was in 2002, i.e. 8 years earlier). Also whilst Wilson is skeptical about some aspects of the paranormal, it was he who was criticized for his views on the ‘Shroud of Turin!’

I only mentioned the ‘expulsion’ because this one of the more recent discoveries regarding Nostradamus’s past (it is part of the new evidence I mentioned earlier). As for you not mentioning this, well there has been someone/troll on this Wiki-page writing abuse remarks off and on for a while now and their refusal to accept N’s expulsion from medical school has been a part of this. How do I know that this troll isn't you, when the comments you write are also highly abusive and ‘unsigned?’ I mean why be anonymous, what are you afraid of? If I am to take you seriously then, I would appreciate you not hiding behind abuse. As any responsible leader of a forum should do, I go where the evidence leads me. This is not hero worshiping! I cannot tell from your comments, whether you even believe that N. was expelled from medical school or not. On the one hand you imply he ‘was’ expelled, due to ‘dealing in eschatology on Christian writings while at tenure’ but then state later that none of the ‘three separate reasons’ for a possible expulsion were confirmed! I assume you have seen the actual handwritten expulsion, in the Montpellier Medical Faculty library? If yes, then why not discuss this in an academic manner, rather than resorting to insults? For example N. may have been an apothecary (as has been previously suggested) rather than a qualified doctor. Smithsurf (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I deleted your comments, as they were damning and inappropriate! I have no issue with academic statements, but you also write deeply offensive statements! It could offend others and not just myself. You also personalize my comments and come across in an incredibly angry manner, there is no need for that. For example I requested (not demanded) that you come out of anonymity. This was not too attack you, as you assume, but I was hoping to engage you in a pleasant discussion, where the facts of Nostradamus can be shared. That is surely what this page is for? Anyhow, I shall respond to the rest of your message when I have more time. Smithsurf (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don’t doubt that Nostradamus had some medical skills, but I cannot find any evidence that he was officially sanctioned/licensed by any such organisation! Also your comments regarding PL supporting certain academics (I presume you mean anti-Christian ones) also favouring Sharia Law are simply untrue. Again where is the evidence? There is none.

Also I think you will find that PL has been arguing that Nostradamus was looking at past material and projecting this into the future, since 1999. He has presented his arguments slighting differently in the 2003 book (The Illustrated Prophecies) and then again in the 2010 Bibliomancer, but the premise of the argument has remained precisely the same. His 1999 book called ‘Nostradamus and Beyond,’ introduced the Janus Hypothesis right there and then! For example it gave such an alternate view to the Quatrain concerning ‘Mabus’ (C2 Q62). Some people at the time wondered whether Mabus was an Antichrist figure; however, consider that there was a painter who died in 1532 by the name of Jan Gosseart de Mabuse. His death occurred in the same year as Emperor Charles V conflict with the Ottoman Empire, which saw him assemble 80,000 troops in what was an exceptionally bloody conflict. There was a very bright comet that year too, just as the Quatrain predicted. See also from PL: "Jan Gossaert de MABUSE, the Flemish painter, died on October 1st 1532. In that same year the Emperor Charles V finally managed to push back the Muslim Ottoman hordes from before the very gates of Vienna - thus 'avenging' their previous 'laying waste of man and beast alike'. In the same year, too, there was a particularly bright comet - though not Halley's, which had returned the previous year".

The above clearly indicates that N. was discussing an event which had already happened, as all the details fit!

PL’s theory about the past repeating itself, is based on Roger Prevost et-al. It was ‘not’ something he simply made up. Also the likes of Bernard Chevignard (who is respected by John Hogue; a well-known strong believer in Nosty’s prophetic powers) and Elmer Gruber who is a confirmed believer in the paranormal and an expert in Nostradamus's writings, support the notion that Nostradamus used past information in this way, rather than being someone who actually ‘saw’ the future.

Your arguments about fate, as in determinism in terms of time are not automatically accepted to be true in the scientific community, it is part of an ongoing debate and even more controversial for many scientists is the subject of precognition.

As for Hawking et al, the concept of UFO’s existing is merely down to the fact that a universe of our size has a high probability of containing other intelligent life ‘somewhere’ as opposed to just here on Earth. The arguments for atheism are based again on a 'probability' that God does not exist.

You also seemed to state that European universities are substandard when compared to American ones and that PL’s books are poor scholarship. Well Oxford and Cambridge are renowned the world over including America! As PL is a graduate of the latter, I would strongly differ with you on this too.

As for not having brought anything new to the table, well this was never my intention for this discussion. I just wanted to highlight the newer evidence which certain fore-mentioned scholars have discovered and referred to. Smithsurf (talk) 23:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

As Rjensen has chosen, without discussing it here first as required by the relevant rubric, to add a 'Further reading' section to the bibliography (which should really be called 'Sources', since that is what it is), kindly allow me to initiate discussion of it here...

Personally, I don't think a 'Further reading' section is needed, but if there is to be one, I agree that Gerson should be included (even though he is much more accurate about events since Nostradamus's death than before it), and possibly, at a pinch, Leoni too (even though he admits to never having seen an original edition). I would draw the line, though, at Cheetham and Roberts, who are so wildly inaccurate and ill-informed (compared with the reputable works listed) as to be a source of disinformation to readers, rather than information (my User Page refers). Certainly Roberts played no part (as originally proposed) in the preparation of the article. Including them would merely open the door to hundreds of other disreputable and highly speculative popular works.

So if readers want a 'Further reading' section consisting of only Gerson and Leoni, I'm prepared to go along with it. But if so I would also suggest renaming the Bibliography section 'Sources', lest there be any further confusion over the issue.

Don't expect me to do it, though!--PL (talk) 17:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought you said you were done with this article? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I said I didn't propose to edit it. That's not the same as not proposing to comment on it. What others care to do about it is entirely up to them.--PL (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit request Bloodletting link

Please add link to Bloodletting wiki article under 'Works' section, 4th para, last sentence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.118.135.32 (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

External links section.

I've removed the warnings from the External links section; given that the section has seen recent changes, and whatever discussion occurred seems to have been far in the past, I don't feel it enjoys any form of clear consensus anymore, and just glancing over it it's clear that the external links need more people editing it, not big warnings scaring them away. Additionally, I removed a link to a Yahoo group and a blog, which are definitely not appropriate externals link per WP:EL (since they're social networking sites and fansite by people who are not recognized authorities.) I also removed the links to www.propheties.it, which appears to be a fansite by someone who isn't a recognized authority in the field (and therefore also fails WP:EL. The entire external links section could probably stand to be overhauled, but those three sources definitely cannot be used. --Aquillion (talk) 08:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

1.Nobody is issuing 'big warnings' -- merely advice to discuss any proposed changes here. This is because the bibliographical links in particular are supposed to be merely a restricted list of Sources used in the article (it was originally entitled 'Sources' until some nit-pickers insisted that it be changed), while there are thousands of other proposed 'sources' out there by people who know next to nothing about the subject, and we would risk being swamped by nutters if they were allowed too easy access.

2. [[WP:EL] says 'generally', and bans only 'Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority.' In this case the author of the blog is indeed a peer-reviewed authority accepted as such by various of the listed specialists -- and, incidentally, the main author of this article, of some 10 years' standing. So why don't you read what the rubric actually says?

3. Boy, have you got propheties.it wrong! Its author is the world authority on the Nostradamus texts and archives, and universally recognised to be so (except by you, apparently!). Indeed, his site is even used by the Vatican Library. Quite how are actual facsimiles of the original texts supposed to be 'unauthoritative'? Do you have a thing against publishing the actual facts? What would be served by hiding them?

4. By all means suggest changes to the external links section, but do it here, make sure any new links are peer-reviewed by reputable authorities (see Bibliography), and don't be too dogmatic about what is 'definitely' acceptable' until you know more about the subject and its known specialists. The time to be definite is when you know more about both. That's what this board is for. --PL (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Please don't revert blindly! If your only dispute is over the prophices.it links and sacred-texts, we should focus on those. Most of the prophices.it links, on review, appear to be dead; the only one which leads to actual content seems to be the timeline, so I stripped it down to that one link for now (there's no purpose to linking to blank pages, dead links, or an empty sitemap.) Beyond that, though, yeah, I don't see any evidence that it's a recognized authority! If you have links showing that prophicies.it is a recognized authority, go ahead and present them; but if anything, your assertion that the author of that blog has heavily edited this article makes me more dubious about including it, not less, since that implies that a lot of the discussion over whether or not to link to it has been done by someone with a clear conflict of interest on the matter. A google search turns up a few people referencing it as a place where the texts can be found, but nobody really speaking to its authority or usefulness as a source beyond that, and surprisingly few sites linking to it. I'd also be dubious about people claiming eg. "it's authoritative because it's used by the Vatican Library." Used how? Can you link to the exact context? Many major organizations have outreach programs that link to or follow blogs and the like fairly indiscriminately (often reciprocally linking anyone who links them); eg. being followed by @BarackObama doesn't make you notable on Twitter. I can't really find any evidence that Mario Gregorio is a recognized authority on Nostradamus; as far as I can tell, he has a single book on Nostradamus to his name, which appears to have been published via a vanity press.
• As a separate concern -- and possibly the reason why parts of the page didn't load for me -- my antivirus just alerted me when I tried to visit the timeline again and prevented me from loading it it; while this doesn't necessarily mean the site itself is malicious or even *necessarily* infected with anything, it's hardly the sign of a site we should be directing people to as an external reference. Here's another report showing that the site may be infected with something. Here is another one, and here is a link to the timeline (the only part that was loading for me before.) Part of the reason we don't use blogs like these as sources is because they can change very quickly, which includes infections like these! Please don't re-add it until, at the very least, it has a clean bill of health from places like those. --Aquillion (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Please don't delete blindly, and before the relevant points have been adequately discussed here!

MY antivirus has not the slightest problem with any of the propheties.it links -- though the 'translations' one was temporary blind (I have now corrected the address). Perhaps you should update your antivirus? Of your three sites supposedly reporting problems, the first one does nothing of the kind, and the other two are both trying to sell you software to correct the alleged 'problem' (conflict of interest!). Are you really so naive as to buy that? And why has the alleged 'problem only just occurred to you?

You ask for authoritative references to the propheties.it site attesting to its usefulness. You do realise, don't you, that most of the reputable printed sources were published BEFORE the invention of the Internet, and that relatively few of the online commentators on Nostradamus really want to know what the texts actually say -- which the site is virtually alone in revealing? However, since you ask, both Ian Wilson in his 'Nostradamus: The Man Behind the Prophecies' (the revised version of his 'Nostradamus: The Evidence' (Orion, 2002), Preface, page x) and Lemesurier, in his 'Nostradamus, Bibliomancer' (New page, 2010 -- Links to current websites, page 282, top and six subsequent entries) -- ie. virtually all the reputable English-language titles published since 2000, and both featured in our bibliography -- give priority to the site, in Wilson's case using the words 'See in particular...'

However, given that you seem to be determined to undermine the factual credentials of the article, you will no doubt wish to continue with your wrecking tactics (despite the fact that everybody else seems to have been perfectly satisfied with the external links for years), in which case the blame for doing so will rest entirely with you... --PL (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• What I mean by "reverting blindly" is that you're only objecting to a few links, yet you're reverting absolutely everything I've done on the page -- a 'blind' revert. If you're only disputing the changes to the external links, please focus on those and don't revert absolutely everything I did. Anyway, I've posted to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, here, asking if Mario Gregorio is a recognized authority on Nostradamus, and so far the feedback is that he's not usable as a source. I don't feel that two people linking to his website is sufficient to establish him as a authority, no (especially since both of them seem to just be linking to him because he had the texts online and not because they feel his opinions are authoritative, which would mean he still fails WP:ELNO.) Your rejection of a lot of existing internet communities is understandable (and we wouldn't link to them, either), but that's no reason to link to Gregorio's webpage or to use it as a cite, especially when we can just cite older published things directly. External link sections are not required; we don't have to link to anything at all, if Gregorio's page is really the best we can find. That said, I'll point out that if we want to link to the full text of the prophecies online, the Internet Sacred Text Archive, which I replaced it with earlier, is actually a lot more established than you say, and certainly more established as a site than Gregorio's, with multiplescholarly sources citing it as a good place to research primary sources. If we need an external link simply for the original texts, it is clearly the better choice, since it has no editorializing whatsoever (whereas Gregorio's site, from what I say, advances his own personal opinions on Nostradamus, which -- as noted -- we can't use as a reference because he himself is not a recognized scholar or anything of that nature on the topic.)
• As far as the malware issue goes, you can confirm it here. The page has been reported as potentially infected in SCUMWARE, AVGThreatLabs, and z_protect, all of whom are reasonably well-known. Of course false positives are a thing, and the majority of AV companies haven't flagged it, but it's still another reason not to link to it (especially if we're just using it as a source for the original texts, which, as I pointed out, are available from a more established site without these issues and without Gregorio's editorializing -- anyone who tries to access Gregorio's site using eg. Avast anti-virus will get a warning and be prevented from accessing it because it's on the AVGThreatLabs blacklist. You can review the exact nature of the infection by following the links on those pages (it looks like a javascript redirect of some sort to a suspicious page.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I just took a look at your Internet Sacred Text Archive, which (you say) is 'certainly more established as a site than Gregorio's, with multiple scholarly sources citing it as a good place to research primary sources.'

In that case the 'multiple scholarly sources' (who, I wonder?) should be ashamed of themselves (this is the problem, when the 'scholars' are not really scholars of Nostradamus, let alone recognised ones!). The biography and texts are both complete travesties, and the latter are not even in facsimile. Moreover, most of the texts aren't even there. As for 'primary sources', don't make me laugh -- it's not even a good secondary one! (If you doubt me, check with the reputable scholars listed in the Bibliography.)

To take the biography, it states that 'During Nostradamus' lifetime the Black Death (today known as the bubonic plague) wiped out over a quarter of Europe.' The Black Death was in fact a 14th century phenomenon. 'His treatment of the Black Death [it goes on] involved ...fresh air and unpolluted water for the healthy, a herbal preparation rich in Vitamin C, and (in contravention of contemporary medical practise) not bleeding his patients.' In fact all of this is complete poppycock dating from the last century, and no contemporary source states as much -- indeed Nostradamus himself admits that patients were bled (and that it didn't work). 'Nostradamus was successful in lessening the impact of the Black Death in the capital of Provence, Aix. The grateful citizens gave him a stipend for life.' In fact he was paid a fixed sum by the council, of which we have a copy of the account. 'The Centuries were published in 1555 and 1558, and have been in print continuously ever since.' In fact there is no surviving copy of a 1558 edition, while the account fails to mention the 1557 and 1568 editions which completed the until-then unfinished opus -- and printing practices at the time didn't permit ANY book to be in print 'continuously', as they were printed by hand, page by page. 'Nostradamus had the visions which he later recorded in verse while staring into water or flame late at night, sometimes aided by herbal stimulants, while sitting on a brass tripod.' This is pure 20th century myth, and no visions are in fact recorded. 'Nostradamus was interred standing upright in the Church of the Cordeliers of Salon.' This is myth too! 'When a necklace was found on his skeleton bearing the date '1700', his body was hurriedly reinterred.' This doesn't even correspond to the myth that it attempts to reflect. 'In Century 9, Quatrain 7, he had written:

The man who opens the tomb when it is found

And who does not close it immediately,

Evil will come to him

That no one will be able to prove.'

This is a complete misrepresentation, in that it omits the last line, which is what is essential to make sense of the previous one -- thus finally putting the lid on your site, which doesn't even correspond to our article. How you could have failed to notice that I can't imagine.

I just took a look at three of the verses quoted (again, not in facsimile). Line 2 of verse I.1 has 'fus' instead of 'sus', and line 4 has 'en vain' instead of just 'vain'. In I.2, 'branches' is translated as 'tripod's legs' (after Leoni's tentative footnote of 1961) when in fact it refers to the Oracle of Branchus (we have the original Latin text that Nostradamus is paraphrasing). Finally X.72 has 'Roy d'effrayeur' (King of Terror) instead of the original 'Roy deffraieur' (defraying king), and it translates 'le grand Roy d'Angolmois' (again after Leoni) as 'the great King of the Mongols', when it simply means 'the great King from Angoumois' (in western France) -- which of course identifies him as the contemporary Francis I of France, who was its Duke. It also fails to spot that the infinitive in the last line is one of Nostradamus's typical 'future infinitives: it simply means 'shall reign'. Leoni, it has to be said, published over half-a-century ago, and is long out of date (in fact he had never seen an original edition -- which doesn't say much for the quality of his texts as used by this site!): if you want to see more on him, as on the many other authors that you are no doubt about to cite, please visit my User Page, which offers peer-reviews for most of them with a view to assessing their suitability or otherwise as sources for the article.

I don't, then, find your recommendation of this site at all encouraging. It suggests that you know little or nothing about Nostradamus, his language, his works, their publishing history (so ably demonstrated by Gregorio) or his commentators -- which hardly qualifies you to edit the content of the article at all intelligently. In fact I haven't previously noticed your doing so and, after reading you, I can see why. It's like a schoolboy trying to edit Chaucer. Do you even know 16th century French -- let alone Nostradamus's version of it? Why, then, this sudden rush of interest? --PL (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

PL is a renowned expert on Nostradamus and has worked very closely with Mario Gregorio. Mario's website (propheties.it) has the best collection of original Nostradamus manuscripts in the entire world! He has concentrated a great deal of time over a number of years, adding and investigating works related to this. Such important work is as credible as having written a number of books on Nostradamus. Given the amount of inaccuracies that exist in many books relating to Nostradamus anyhow, Mario has proven himself to be a 'highly' recognized authority on the subject! You can see further evidence of this in the NostradamusRG group on Yahoo. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/NostradamusRG/conversations/messages Smithsurf (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, Aquillion, YOU are the one raising all these surprisingly ill-informed criticisms, so YOU can do the research...

Re my paragraph 2. above, first read what the rubric actually says, then research 'Peter Lemesurier' in

• Wilson, op. cit. pp. X, xiv, xvi, 78, 282
• Chevignard, op. cit. p. 470
• Gerson, up. cit (10 references, including one to the Nostradamus Research Group)
• Smoley, R. The Essential Nostradamus (Tarcher/Penguin, NY, 2006), numerous references throughout
• 'Nostradamus in English?' in Nostradamus, Traducteur Traduit, journal of the Institut superieur de traducteurs et interpretes, Haute Ecole De Bruxelles, 1999
• Maison de Nostradamus, Salon-de-Provence, archives for 16-17 March 2002

There seems to be no doubt at all, then, that he is a 'recognised authority'.

Re my para 3., read what the rubric actually says, then see:

• Wilson op. cit. page x
• Lemesurier, op. cit. 2010, page 282
• Gerson, op. cit. one reference

Gregorio's site is evidently an important, if not a unique one.

Meanwhile I disagree with your deletion of the Nostradamus Research Group, which is as valid an international Nostradamus forum (see Gerson supra) as the other two that you have left standing, even if, for convenience, it happens to use Yahoo as a vehicle. Once again, read the rubric.

When you have done all this research, hopefully you will be better informed. Then feel free to come back to us. --PL (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've looked over those, and none of them, as far as I can tell, are actually citing Gregorio as an authority, just noting it as a page where the text has been uploaded. I encourage you to review the clause in WP:ELNO in question, which specifies that we cannot include "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 who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Does Mario Gregorio meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people)? I don't feel he does. Regardless, the research group itself clearly fails WP:ELNO; there is no exception to the ban on social networking sites, not even if they were a recognized authority (which I dispute; one reference to a group doesn't make it a recognized authority.) Gregorio's site also fails point 3 (since it may be infected with malware) but that is a lesser issue as he is presumably capable of fixing that if he is still active. Anyway, I've posted about this on WP:ELN asking for comments. --Aquillion (talk) 00:54, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You really don't read what's there, do you? Did you not notice the word 'generally' at the top? And there's not only one reference to the Nostradamus group, but three. --PL (talk) 08:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

• Most of the EL look like they should remove. A potentially malware carrying personal website of an amateur expert is not an eligible link at all. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Virtually the sole interest in Nostradamus is his writings. But for them, we probably wouldn't be discussing him. The only person in the history of the world who has collected all of them under one roof and presented every page of every known edition to the world in facsimile (that is to say, totally UNedited) is Mario Gregorio, who has spent literally a fortune on the task over the years. Not one of the linked pages could be described as a 'personal' page, and their sales information is minimal -- no more than the 'Sacred Books' site that you were trying to foist on us earlier, whose texts are heavily edited from beginning to end, to the point where it could be said that they aren't by Nostradamus at all. Whether Gregorio is a 'notable person' as per Wikipedia:Notability_(people) is irrelevant, given that his pages aren't biographical sites in the sense of the rubric (why do people keep referring to bits of the rubric out of context, I wonder, determinedly seeing only the bits they want to see?): as the same site puts it, 'Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.' So is his 'amateur' status, since the texts themselves, being direct facsimiles, carry their own authority. The fact that few books acknowledge what they have freely borrowed from him is simply a function of the fact that there is no copyright in photocopies, and therefore no need to acknowledge them. What you seem intent on denying readers is access to the whole of Nostradamus's actual writings as printed, which are an essential adjunct to any article about him. It would be crass in the extreme to deny readers access to this unique resource (which is currently being debugged, incidentally) on the grounds of misguided, one-eyed Wikipedia pedantry. As Wikipedia:Notability_(people) puts it, common sense needs to be applied. NO other site provides this information. --PL (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

And, incidentally, a CD of Mario's facsimiles was published (under his own name) by New Page Books to accompany Lemesurier op. cit. 2010 -- so he is as professional as any published author.

Now please restore the warning to potential editors not to introduce external links that haven't first been discussed on this page, before we are flooded with more nonsense from nutters and ignoramuses! --PL (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

None of what you are saying is a valid reason for us to ignore WP:ELNO. Even if his site truly were the unique treasure you claim (which I do not feel is true from what I saw of it), it is still a personal fansite produced by someone who is not a recognized authority; we cannot simply go by your assertion that all of his reproductions are accurate or complete. And the 'warning', I'll reiterate, does not enjoy any form of consensus on this talk page, so it cannot be restored; as far as I can tell, it was placed there by people eager to defend links to their favorite fan-sites or Yahoo groups. --Aquillion (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Gregorio is the only recognised online authority, as far as the texts are concerned (did you even bother to open up all his files? how can a facsimile not be accurate?) -- even if you, being ignorant of the subject, are unaware of the fact -- and nobody is ignoring WP:ELNO: quite the contrary. As I reminded you, WP:ELNO states: 'Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.' This is precisely the case with Gregorio. (It also insists on editors exercising common sense, by the way!) Moreover, you seem particularly keen on the term 'Fansite': Gregorio's site is a specialist site devoted to the subject of the article. If all such sites are to be dismissed as 'fansites' we might as well all pack up and go home! Goodbye common sense! The 'warning' was put there by people trying to compensate for their insistence on calling the Sources list, 'Bibliography'. I will change it back again. Meanwhile, for you to complain about lack of 'consensus' on the Talk page, when your sole reason for removing it was to allow you to override its insistence on obtaining consensus on the Talk page, is plainly self-contradictory, not to say ludicrous. Let's face it, almost the sole reason for your intervention was to allow you to foist on us a disreputable site (= 'fansite'?) whose invalidity you, as a non-specialist, were totally unaware of. Why don't you go somewhere else and exercise your destructive skills on an article whose subject you know something about, rather than on a Featured Article of long standing?--PL (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

PS I see that you have now made umpteen minor amendments to the wording. While none of them seem objectionable in themselves, there are always hundreds of possible alternative expressions, and no reason to insist on one rather than the other. If you really think that any of them are particularly important, have the courtesy to do what was suggested all along, and float them here first, along with your other more major changes, preferably one at a time, as you are so keen on 'consensus'. That's what this Talk page is for. See WP:CONSENSUS -- 'When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.'--PL (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I also see that some pretty disgraceful discussion has been going on in the background. I cite: 'A claim that someone is a "recognized authority" is meaningless without evidence of such a claim from other reputable sources. The disclaimer at the bottom of some pages "Note: If you think that in any page we have violated the copyright please inform us at once we will provide to remove it." does not inspire confidence.'

This last point is frankly disgraceful. Mario is Italian, and poking fun at his English has nothing whatever to do with his ability to photocopy and make facsimiles, if indeed it's not racist. And his claim to being an authority on Nostradamus is indeed backed up by 'evidence of such a claim from other reputable sources' (Wilson op. cit., Lemesurier op. cit. 2010), added to which he is published in his own right by a reputable mainstream publisher (New Page Books, NJ -- supplied CD of facsimiles, 2010). --PL (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Although I am happy to discuss any specific objections you have to my edits, please don't blanket-revert all of them with a demand that every change go through talk! It isn't reasonable to demand discussion of every minor grammatical change. In general, my changes are aimed at making the article easier to read and adhere to plain language. For more specific explanations (though the edit summaries explained many of them):

• The part of the lead beginning "Nevertheless, occasional commentators..." takes a slightly non-neutral tone (by editorializing with the determined "twisting" line) and in particular highlights a particular event that doesn't seem to be referenced in the article; this is bad because leads need to reflect the article.
• The wording for the date of birth "Born on 14, or 21 December 1503..." reads badly in English.
• Several other edits were to remove unnecessary parenthesis, which make the language choppy and harder to read.
• Similarly, "came about purely because he had published his 1562 almanac without the prior permission of a bishop, contrary to a recent royal decree" is unnecessarily convoluted wording.
• I reworded the (see Nostradamus in popular culture) part to work it into the text, since, again, the parenthesis broke the flow of the article.
• I reworded the first sentence of the "Alternate views" section because its previous wording ("A range of quite different views are expressed in printed literature and on the Internet") doesn't make any sense as the lead-in to a section.
• And, while we have discussed this at length above, I don't feel that the warning there enjoys consensus (even looking over the history before I arrived here makes it clear you've had to revert many other people changing that section, which means that the section itself can't be said to enjoy consensus). Looking back over the talk page history, it seems to have had very little discussion here. Likewise, a Yahoo group will never pass WP:ELNO.
• I'll reiterate that I have avoided removing the links to Mario's site, which I believed were the locus of the dispute.

None of these things are rewrites; they are fairly minor improvements (although a lot of them, since the article needs a lot of work in the prose department.) Aside from the last two points, I believe they are all completely uncontroversial, or at least nobody has raised any specific objections to them. With all these things said, your reference to this article's featured article status made me realize that it was featured in 2006, when standards were very different from now, and has not been reviewed since; even putting aside the external links section, the article's prose does not generally strike me as particularly high-quality, and it was clearly not stable even before I arrived here (since, looking over the history, it is clear you have had to revert it many many times. Therefore, I intend to list this on WP:FAR if steps can't be taken to improve its quality; I do not believe it comes close to the quality needed for a featured article today. --Aquillion (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Then you'd better get on with it, as I've now withdrawn my research. I have better things to do with my life than fight you and other ill-informed, legalistic Wikipedants for the right to publish it in Wikipedia. It has become impossible to maintain my reputation as a reliable contributor with (as it happens) unique knowledge of the subject in the anglophone sphere, or that of my academic colleagues as reliable sources, in the face of such ignorant harassment. I have left two or three sentences that were not mine. Enjoy yourself -- and do take care, as one who knows next to nothing about the subject, not to make too big a fool of yourself! --PL (talk) 09:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)