Talk:Nostradamus/Archive 6

Major disaster, really?
"With each succeeding major disaster, such as that of September 11, 2001, people have sought, always after the event, to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it...". Isn't this just an example of the extreme American POV that is so dominant on wikipedia. Sure, I do not contest that it was a tragedy for those involved, but in a global (and especially historical) perpective it was definitely not "a major disaster". Look around you, there are "major disasters" taking place all over the world each year such as earthquakes, tsunamis, famine and so on. But I guess it would be too much of me to ask for as most of the wikipedian users probably can't even point out where Africa or Asia is on the map.
 * Please sign edits to Talk pages with four tildes: ~ I think the point here is that 9/11 is an excellent example of a disaster people have sought to find a quatrain for, rather than an example of a major disaster per se. --Dhartung | Talk 09:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, that may be true, but I dispute that 9/11 should be used as some sort of a prime example of a "major disaster" when there are so many disasters to choose from that caused a lot more destruction, and cost in human life than 9/11.
 * There are psychological and symbolic disasters as well as physical ones! --PL 14:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In this context, it is not being used as the ultimate example of a world disaster, but, rather as an example of a historical event in which many people went back and referred to the writings of Nostradamus. Other disasters, while greater in terms of human tolls, were not quite as germaine to the subject of the article as 9/11 was. Other such historical examples could include the Kennedy assasination or Hitler's rise to power. It's all in the context of the subject matter.
 * First of, I'm glad to see that someone logically sound person changed the article and omitted the 9/11 reference in the beginning of the article. Good work! Secondly, "which many people went back and referred to the writings of Nostradamus" is maybe true when it comes to Americans who (in my very biased opinion) always like to "hijack" the world history in a vain try to make their own so much more interesting. If it's not alleged descendants of the Knights Templar living in America today, it's Nostradamus prophecies predicting milestones in the US history. I do not wish to sound bitter or like I hold a grudge against Americans, because I don't. I just want Wikipedia (which a lot of people are reading and thinking that it's completely devoid of biases of any kind, which is very naive) to be as neutral as possible. So please, step out of the box and try to write the articles from a more international and neutral perspective (this tip would be useful for most English articles on wikipedia, maybe this is the same with the Italian, Spanish, French sections as well).

George Edward Purdy interpretted Quatrain X.72 as a reference to the September 11, 2001 attacks as follows:


 * In French:


 * L'an mil neuf cent nonante neuf sept mois,
 * Du ciel viendra un grand Roi d'effrayeur:
 * Ressusciter le grand Roi d'Angolmois,
 * Avant après Mars regner par bonheur.


 * In English:


 * In the year 1999, in the seventh month,
 * from the sky will come the great King of Terror,
 * Uplifting the great King of Angolmois.
 * Before and after, Mars reigns happily.

This is one of the few instances where Nostradamus refers to a year directly. This is generally something he avoids, and in this case he is using a simple encryption of the date. The year 1999 with digits reversed is 9111, or 9/11/01. The month listed is "sept mois" which literally means seventh month. September literally means seventh month, and is the seventh month of the astrological calendar, which starts with Mars/March, so the date September 11, 2001 is clearly indicated.

As has been graphically depicted, a great king of terror did come from the sky on that day as terrorists attacked buildings flying commercial airliners.

I believe it could be argued that the great king of Angolmois is the president of the United States who gained much support after the attacks, and launched the War on Terror.

The reference to Mars reigning happily is a reference to the god of war.


 * Yes, yes, Mr Anonymous, we've heard it all many times before, and it's well past its sell-by date. As you'll see if you follow up the appropriate External Link, you'll see that the last words of the original line 2 were in fact 'Roy deffraieur', not 'Roi d'effrayeur'. If you then go to point 14 of Lemesurier's FAQs (also via External Links), you'll see this fully explained, and realise that the expression has nothing to do with a 'King of Terror'. You'll also see that Angoumois is a known region of France, not of the USA (despite the desperate efforts of those who want to make the link via the fact that the site of New York was once christened 'New Angoulême'), and that 'Mars' can have many connotations, including the month of the year. And furthermore, if you read the article itself, you'll see that Nostradamus himself published at least 11 annual calendars, in all of which the year starts on January 1st and the seventh month is therefore July, not September. (Moreover, 1999 is not, and never was, 2001!) --PL 10:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Immortal?
I removed "In the immortal words of Arthur C Clarke" as I don't think that kind of wording has any place in an objectively written factual piece of work. Is Mr Clarke an omnipotent being, or are the various manifestations of his work omnipotent? No. He is not 'immortal' and neither are his words. --Anon 23rd May 2006


 * Fair enough. Mind you, it's a familiar enough literary phrase, and his 'Third Law' may be remembered for a long time. On the other hand, the word 'immortal' might, I suppose, suggest that it may be remembered for ever. True, it may be – though that would have nothing whatever to do with 'omnipotence'. However, in the context of Wikipedia it's also true that it might indicate inappropriate approval. --PL 08:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, I removed that whole sentence, because the quote was totally irrelevant to the topic. The previous sentence indicated that Nostradamus' predictions were vague, and that he wrote them based on humdrum methods. The quote from Arthur C. Clarke essentially states that if one doesn't know how something works, it might seem amazing. But since Nostradamus' predictions were just said to be vague, and largely unoriginal, never having predicted anything specific, nothing about it seems amazing, whether or not you know what his methods are. I would rather apply this quote to, perhaps, the astronomical prediction of a solar eclipse to one who knows nothing about the sun or the moon (as in Twain's "Connecticut Yankee..."). If someone strongly disagrees, feel free to revert. - Torgo 01:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it has a purpose. It's been reverted.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that most people assume that Nostradamus used magic to arrive at his predictions, since they can't see how he did it otherwise. The article shows that he didn't. He merely used a perfectly ordinary technique that is nevertheless too clever for most of them to 'spot'. Hence the Clarke quote, which states exactly that. --PL 10:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that Nostrodamus did not use technology, let alone magic. The Clarke quote is very nice, but it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Nostrodamus.  It is simply irrelevant.  It does not belong here.  Please do not put it back again.  85.210.70.193 11:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, he used the technology of comparative horoscopy and historical projection involving the use of complicated tables and even cardboard computers, but which the uninformed persist in assuming was some sort of magic. The Clarke quote is therefore absolutely a propos. Moreover, unlike certain people, he could actually spell his name! ;) --PL 11:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Comparitive horoscopy" and "historical projection" are not "technologies," they are methods. The Clarke quote really is irrelavant and inappropriate. funkendub 15:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And Apianus's disc-type computers, as illustrated in Lemesurier op. cit.?
 * Perhaps you should consult Webster's definitions of 'technology': "3: the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor ". Clarke's Third Law sums up extremely neatly the difference between what Nostradamus did and what the ignorant assume that he did, and therefore makes an excellent summary-statement. --PL 15:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * American Heritage Disctionary: "The application of science, especially to industrial or commercial objectives.... [or, to an anthropologist:] The body of knowledge available to a society that is of use in fashioning implements, practicing manual arts and skills, and extracting or collecting materials." As Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, when it comes to horoscopy or historical projection and science, "There is no there there." funkendub 20:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And which of their several definitions have you carefully ignored? Or is that Disctionary (sic!) really as inadequate as you seem to suggest? --PL 08:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that a better understanding of the roots of the word might be appropriate to raise here: the word, which has existed in English for over 400 years, comes from the Greek τεχνη (tekhne), which means, "art, craft", and λεγειν (legein) to write/talk about, from λογος (logos) word. Note the root, "art, craft".  These distinctions are important for as the OED notes, the word was originally used to refer to a "treatise on a subject...on an art or arts".  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  08:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're not going for the etymological fallacy here, are you? By that logical "manufactured" goods are handmade, "virtuous women" are manly, and "self-immolation" refers to the act of sprinkling oneself with flour.--Chris 15:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't do etymological fallacies. In this case the etymology is important, as was explained by myself and PL above.  BTW, the "mola" in immolate refers to meal, not flour.  Farina is flour.  :)   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, two more items -- manufacture did mean precisely "hand-made" at its inception; and "virile" is manly in the sense you mean manly; "virtuous" (from virtus) had the sense of all of the good qualities of a man combined -- honour, strength, courage (moral and physical), aptness, worth and excellence, in other words, virtue. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the history of those words. My point (hardly original) is that the meaning of the ultimate root doesn't determine the current meaning in English, although it may help illuminate it. Generally, the objections to the Clarke quote seem reasonable.--Chris 16:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * (ri) The "current meaning in English" is somewhat of a misnomer that seems to speak more to the vox populi apprehension of a word rather than to any semantic reality. Given your linguistic knowledge, surely you are aware that very few words have only one "current meaning", as the older (in a chronological sense) meanings, so long as they've not become obsolete, continue to coexist with the most common "popular" meaning, which, I believe, is really to what you refer when you speak of currency.
 * To wit: "current", for most people, means "present, topical", but it has a number of other "meanings", both as an adjective and a noun. For example, current has 10 definititions (6 n., 4 adj.) in the OED, three of which have sub-definitions, of which only one (and that a sub-def of the adj) is obsolete.  "Meaning" and its parent word "mean" fill up over a page of the OED.  The point of all of this, is of course, that you are relying on the most popular meaning, rather than the "current" meaning, as all but one adjectival form still have currency.  Therefore, as the use of "technology" as espoused by PL and I still has currency, stating that it is not the "current meaning" is incorrect, and thus any semantic argument against the inclusion of the Clark quote is in error.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The section in question reads:

In this and other ways, the real Nostradamus has over the centuries become increasingly unknown, and the unknown Nostradamus "real", to the point where millions of perfectly rational people today believe only legends about him and, to the mystification of the actual scholars in the field, are reluctant to believe anything else — least of all that the real man used the real, and for the most part perfectly humdrum, techniques described above to arrive at predictions that are as vague and nonspecific as they actually are. In the words of Arthur C Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (my emphasis)

What Arthur C Clarke's quote means is that for, say, someone from the 10th century a TV set (the sufficiently advanced technology) would appear as magic since they would simply have no means of assimilating it into their understanding - the technology being too advanced and different from anything they had seen before. There is nothing in the above section that is in the least comparable. That is, the section states explicitly that Nostradamus used humdrum methods and that people are unwilling to belive this, prefering instead to believe he used magic. It says nothing about Nostradamus' actual methods being so advanced and so complex that people cannot understand them. If the point really is that the methods used by Nostradamus were so complex/advanced (i.e not humdrum) that people cannot actually understand them then that should be stated. As things stand, Clarke's quote does not reflect in any way the point made directly preceding it.Davkal 13:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you understand them, then? Or are they so advanced and complex to you (even if humdrum to him and to anybody who already understands them) that you have hitherto assumed that they were magic or, at very least, occult, as most people clearly have to date (to which, of course, he owes his dark, occult reputation)? --PL 15:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is not whether I, or anyone else, understands N's methods or not (I allow for all these possibilities above). The point is simply that Clarke's quote makes no sense at the end of the paragraph as it is currently written. Therefore: either, the paragraph needs to be changed to make the case that N's methods were so complex, i.e. not humdrum, that they would appear to us/me to be magic (like the TV to 10th century man); or, if you want to retain the claim that the methods are indeed humdrum then Clarke's quote should be removed. And, just for the record, N's dark occult reputation is down to the fact that he is believed by many to have obtained foreknowledge of the future by some method and not for the particular methods he used to "obtain" that foreknowldge. Davkal 16:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But are we talking about how an ancient Greek might have used the word "technology" or how a contemporary user of English might use it in an article intended to preserve and spread knowledge? We could play etymology games with a great number of words: animation, for instance, really means "the movement of the soul." If we're to rely on the history of a word, the OED is great, yes, but note when it came into the English language and that it's never meant "to write about..." A pencil is a technology and may be used to write a horoscope, but a horoscope is a method of prognostication. Davkal has it right: there was nothing in N.'s teknes, his techniques, that wasn't already in use... and for thousands of years, at that. funkendub 15:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah – now them's hard words, mister! First, then, perhaps you'd better first of all tell us exactly and in detail (with examples) what Nostradamus's techniques were, then give us documented examples of others before him who used the same techniques? This'll be interesting – should keep us here for days! ;) --PL 15:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading the paragraph preceding the quote carefully, it relates to the current belief of many people that N's methods were magic. Specifically, "millions of perfectly rational people today believe only legends about him", which establishes the subject of the following observation. Obviously N's technologies are not advanced compared to those of modern times, hence the quote (and most of the above argument) is irrelevant to this paragraph. Erg0 03:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, his 'comparative horoscopy' (and its associated hardware) was a technology far more sophisticated than most people today can imagine (largely because they are ignorant of the historical sources on which he relied). That is precisely why he is credited with using some kind of magic. Nobody said anything about comparing them with those of modern times anyway. So the quote is perfectly relevant. --PL 08:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So many here seem to want to argue semantics with little knowledge of what semantics really entails. But I suppose that is the curse of ther post-modern era, wherein people rely on sound-bytes and bullets for their information, rather than to delve into longer sentences and *gasp!* paragraphs (or, heaven forfend, chapters) where the subtleties of the language still prevail.  Very sad.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Erg0 has it spot on. The point is about what the paragraph currently says, and not about what what it might say. And as things stand the paragraph says pretty much that people (today) still choose to believe he used magic rather than accepting the more mundane explanations on offer. In such a context a quote such as "people always prefer a good mystery over the truth anyday" might be appropriate but Clarke's quote doesn't mean that at all. Therefore either remove Clarkes quote and choose a more suitable one, OR, if Clarke's quote is to be used then the preceding paragraph must be changed to something like PL is now arguing. That is, that "his 'comparative horoscopy' (and its associated hardware) was a technology far more sophisticated than most people today can imagine". But the paragraph in question, as noted, says the opposite of that now, it says his methods were mundane! Davkal 12:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll take another look at it. --PL 15:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
"Since the time of publication of the book, a virtual cult has grown around Nostradamus and his Propheties. With each succeeding major disaster, such as that of 9/11, people have sought (always after the event) to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it — usually taking considerable liberties either with the original text or with the event itself. Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance."

This seems to be very biased against Nostradamus -TheOtherFonz 18:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * By "biased against" I assume you mean "an accurate rendition of failed attempts to use the prophecies of" - DavidWBrooks 18:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd imagine that those inconvenient facts are to be left out of the article and a more hagiographic tone is to be adopted. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I would agree that that part is biased. "..(always after the event)..." is a false statement, since it has been stated by others on this page that some believers in Nostradamus's prophecies believed before 9/11 that there would be an attack in New York form the Middle-East. The last sentence, "Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance," also seems to be false because of this. Even though those believers thought that the attack would use missles, they still accuratley "predicted" an attack in New York from the Middle-East. - nonimus 2006-05-21 02:25 (UTC)


 * So a generalised prediction is a specific prediction? 'There will be war in Europe', for example, is a prediction of World War II, or III, or IV? If so, which? Did the 'believers' specify airliners, the WTC, the non-nuclear nature of the attack, the date? Did they warn the authorities? If so, which specific quatrain (see above) did they claim gave these details? And if they didn't, 9/11 wasn't predicted, even though something vaguely akin to it might arguably have been. As for Nostradamus himself, not one of Nostradamus's predictions mentions New York, let alone an attack on it, whether from the Middle East or anywhere else, so how can he possibly have predicted 9/11? You may not like the article's statement, but clearly it is purely factual. As for the initial claim above, clearly the statement is in no sense biased against Nostradamus.


 * Meanwhile, if New York suffers an even bigger attack tomorrow, will the 'believers' have predicted that as well? Or instead? And what about Nostradamus? --PL 16:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Any news on an attack on LA? Or Chicago?  Philly, Atlanta, San Fran?  Surely there must be something about a vast wasteland, cubs wearing white socks, a bell, an underground and a pyramid mentioned somewhere (might have to play with the word a bit, but hey, isn't that de rigueur?  ;)   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would suggest that in future anybody making statements such as those under discussion be asked the following questions:
 * 1. How can reporting the antics of those who misrepresent Nostradamus (see Nostradamus in popular culture) possibly be described as 'criticising Nostradamus'?
 * 2. What the 'believers' (actually the falsifiers – see Nostradamus in popular culture) predicted was a nuclear missile attack on New York. There has beeen no nuclear missile attack on New York. So how can it possibly be said that their prediction was correct?
 * 3. If the 'believers' correctly predicted the WTC attacks on 9/11, then they should have been prosecuted for failing to warn the authorities about it, and thus for indirectly aiding and abetting terrorism. Have they been?
 * 4. If New York is destroyed by a nuclear missile attack tomorrow, do you guarantee here and now that you will continue to claim that the predictions of the 'believers' refer to 9/11, and not to the nuclear attack – even though that is what they in fact predicted?
 * As for the recent edit-comment suggestion that the relevant material in the article is 'original research', it is simply a fact that, so far as is known, no quatrain has ever been used successfully to predict any particular event, at least as evidenced by the sources listed (which are by definition all that the article can base itself on): not one of them adduces such a case. Thus, it is any suggestion to the contrary (and any editing based on it), and not the assertion itself, that constitutes 'original research'!--PL 08:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think an encyclopedia is the correct place to put forward personal views about things. The simple fact is that that some people have made predictions prior to certain events based on Nostradamus' writings (9/11) and some other people claim those predictions are not good/specific enough to count as genuine predictions at all. How specfic things need to be, however, is a matter of personal taste and therefore neither point should be cited as fact. In addition, there is a perfectly reasonable way of putting both sides of this debate into an article without claiming that one is correct. For example, "Supporters of Nostradamus have identified numerous quatrains which they claim predict many important world events, while critics argue that in almost all cases the association between the quatrain and the "predicted" event is made after the fact and that in those rare cases (e.g. 9/11) when a prediction is made prior to the event the claims are so general that they have no real predictive value etc. etc.". In this way the article can cover the facts about Nostradamus and the current viewpoints concerning his abilities without presenting those viewpoints as fact. As things stand, the claim that "to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict an event in advance" is simply wrong, since it lacks the caveat "to everyone's satisfaction" or something of the sort. Two further points. Firstly, I am not an authority on Nostradamus, but as I understand things Nostradamus rose to prominence during his lifetime specifically on account of the fact that Queen Catherine de Medici intrepreted his writings as correctly predicting the death of her husband, and some aspects of the manner of his death, prior to his death. This may not be true, but if it is then we have at least one case where a specific interpretation was made prior to the event.

Secondly, I am unaware of the rules and regulations governing predictions, but it seems to me that the only thing necessary for a prediction to be a prediction is that it accurately predicts an event prior to the event and not that it is necessarily correctly interpreted by others as predicting that event prior to the event. If a clear case can be made that x accurately predicts y then whether it was noticed that x predicts y prior to y happening is largely irrelevant. All failure on this point alone could mean is that the predictions are not much good as warnings or some such thing, but they may still be accurate predictions nonetheless. The question that would decide this point would then become: are the predictions so vague, or so likely (there will be war in the East at some point) as to not really count as a predictions in the strong sense at all. And while this latter point is addressed above, it is very different from the bald assertion that predictions must be perfectly clear to all and sundry prior to the event to count as a prediction at all. After all, if we really are dealing with an ability to gain knowledge of the future by means unknown, then we are in no position to place a priori constraints on the manner in which that knowledge comes to us. Davkal 05:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Davkal


 * 1. No, Nostradamus didn't predict the death of Henri II at quatrain I.35 (as is widely believed today, thanks to uninformed writers such as Cheetham), and nobody suggested in print that he had (not even himself or his over-enthusiastic secretary Chavigny) until 1614, 55 years later. Indeed, in one of his Almanachs for that year (1559), he actually stated 'France shall greatly grow, triumph, be magnified, and much more so its Monarch.' He himself would later relate the event to a different verse entirely (III.55 - open letter to Jean de Vauzelles of 1562), but only by retrospectively changing one of its words. Methinks somebody has been led astray by the professional falsifiers again! ;)


 * 2. The article merely reflects the fact that none of its stated sources (which by definition are all it can rely on) point to such a prediction. However, if you wish to discuss the issue here, please quote and reference just one quatrain that anybody has ever used accurately to predict an event that subsequently happened (that means using all the elements in the quatrain, and not merely a selection of them, and applying all of them to the event), other than in the most general sense (e.g. 'there will be war', 'an earthquake', 'a flood somewhere in the Mediterranean'...). --PL 09:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the length of the debate in both this section and the "Does not Conform to NPOV" section, clearly shows that it was not written with a Neutral Point of View, but clearly from the non-believers position. ProdigalSon 08:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, and the POV got through the peer-review process and made it to featured article status? Extraordinary!  What you really mean, is that that the article is historically factual, and not hagiographic.  Why not take the time to read the Encyclopaedia Brittanica article on good old Nosty.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, but he makes a valid point there actually. Let me immediately preface this by saying that I do not believe the slightest of any of this nonsense about a supposed ability in certain humans to predict future events (so any smearing attempts from you or others to try and place me in the camp of 'believers' will remain quite fruitless regardless of effort), and yet when I first read the introduction of the article on today's featured article page I swiftly and without pre-meditated thought found myself questioning its neutrality as well, and I am a seasoned editor of this website despite the fact that I have never bothered to register myself.  I find the way in which you and a few others here seem to take this criticism of several people now on a near personal level to be rather suspicious as well, actually.  Wikipedia is not a place to promote neither pro nor contra views, but a place for factual information to be presented in an objective and neutral manner so that each reader can draw his or her own conclusions based on that objectively presented information.  In my personal opinion anyone who actually believes in these Nostradamus prophecies is quite frankly a retard, but that certainly doesn't mean I will be adding such statements to the article even though technically I could prove this by underlining the fact that none of these prophecies (or any like them for that matter) have actually proven to be correct.  Quite frankly, Jim, I'm just not that arrogant a person.


 * And that is something you and a few others here could learn a thing or two from, as a matter of fact. We are going to work on improving the neutrality of this article. I am completely open to debate and open to suggestions on how exactly we will achieve this, but you may as well come to terms with the notion that I find your arguments as to why the opening section of the article should remained unchanged to be unconvincing.  81.240.58.215 11:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please note that the opening section is currently under review (see below). --PL 15:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ...which, for what it's worth, contains at least four major errors (compare this article)! --PL 09:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to User:81.240.58.215|81.240.58.215. The negative responses from others, however, do not address the points raised so I shall try to clarify them. Firstly, it is simply not true that nobody has made a succesful prediction using Nostradamus' quatrains, and; secondly, even if it was true it would be irrelevant. This is the reason the statement relating to this claim should either be removed or amended. On the first point, there is, for example, the 9/11 prediction, and I, myself, have predicted using quatrain (pick any quatrain you like) that there will be a FIFA World Cup in Germany this summer (I have even predicted the teams involved, the times of the matches etc. etc.). What is in doubt here, what is a matter of opinion rather than hard fact, as almost everyone in favour of keeping/amending the text agrees, is whether the predictions made are specific enough (in the case of my World Cup prediction surely yes, in the case of 9/11 maybe) or derive clearly enough from the source (in the case of my World Cup prediction clearly not - the picking of any quatrain sort of gives the game away, or in the case of 9/11 maybe) to demonstrate any predictive power in the writings of Nostradamus. But, as noted, this is a matter of personal taste. And the point here is that nobody can rightly lay claim to be official judge of what is and what is not specific enough to count as a genuine prediction given what little we know about the form that foreknowledge of the future would take, if it exists at all. Even if you don't buy any of that, there is still the second point concerning the question of where the claim that it is necessary to correlate a prediction with an event prior to that event gets its importance. The point here again being that given what little we know about the form that foreknowledge of the future would take we simply cannot neutrally place such demands upon prediction. In summary, to insist upon such demands as, e.g., using "all" the elements in a quatrain in one prediction, or to discount the 9/11 prophecy for not having dates (and if it had dates we would then presumably need times of the day and the highjackers' names as well!), or to demand a priori correlation is like saying "of course, none of the proponents of the theory of evolution have succesfully managed to produce any birth, death or marriage records from the jurassic period" which, even being true, is hardly neutral. In both cases, then, it is this placing of constraints that are by no means agreed upon that means that any conclusions drawn (no succesful predictions yet made) are themselves non-neutral and should not be stated as neutral fact. And, given that there are readily available literary devices for dealing with such things, for example, caveats such as "it is argued that...", the resistance to even this simple change seems to me to call into question the neutrality of the article still further. Let us ask, why is this opening section really there: to inform the reader neutrally about Nostradamus (including, if you like, informing them about the debate concerning his predictive powers), or to present judgements about Nostradamus and his commentators from one particular (even if it is correct) standpoint as neutral fact rather than as judgements. Davkal 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)davkal


 * Ah ! tu parles le français moyen ? Tres bien, prévois quelque chose pour nous maintenant !   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  14:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. The opening statement doesn't pass any judgement on Nostradamus, only on his would-be interpreters. Do try and distinguish between the two.
 * 2. The article is (and according to Wiki rules has to be) based on the academic sources listed. Whatever the rightness or wrongness of your extraordinarily tortuous argument in vacuo, the fact remains that not one of the sources listed cites an example of a quatrain being successfully used to predict any specific event in advance (if you know of such a case, please cite it). The well-known predictions regarding New York were not of 9/11, but of an attack with nuclear weapons: no such attack has occurred. The opening statement is therefore correct. --PL 15:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

1. In your first point you make my point for me - excellent. The opening passage passes judgement. Please label it as such with an appropriate caveat or remove it. 2. In your second point you completely ignore my claim that your are not the appointed judge of specificity relating to predictions therefore you are in no position to state categorically that such interpretations/predictions are not of 9/11. That is your opinion, and the best that can actually be said is that if the predictions/interpretations are of 9/11 then they are not exact. Given this the documentary which included the "9/11 predictions" can be cited as the case where a prediction was made prior to an event. 3. I do not see why it should cause so much alarm to insert something like "it is claimed" before a claim rather than to just have the claim stated there as if it were a documented fact rather than a point of some debate. 4. If you look at the actual text in the article "Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance" you will see that it does not even make any reference to specificity re the details of the event (the point you now appear to be arguing, instead it says "any event whatsoever", and in light of the 9/11 predictions this seems just plainly false. Alternatively, if what is meant in the article is that nobody has verified that a prediction has come true prior to the event then, given the impossibility of such an enterprise (discounting validation through further prediction) this should really be made clear since I doubt many readers will guess that the mere claim that nobody has done the impossible is what is being made. Davkal 16:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You really can't get your head around it, can you? Wikipedia rules require that articles be based on stated sources, not original research. Not one of the academic sources listed at the end of the article (which are what the article is based on) adduces a case where a quatrain has been successfully used to predict a specific event in advance – not even 9/11 (and several of them were written since that date). Nor is this surprising, given that nobody did – no date, no aircraft, no towers, only a vague prediction of an attack with nuclear missiles that didn't happen. --PL 08:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

For you Jim, as the song says: I predict a diet! Davkal 18:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, yeah...whatever. In any case, carefully read what PL has written, and take a look at WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:RS.  Your comments here have been examples of original research, which is not to be included in an article.  You never answered my question, by the wy, do you read Middle French?  After all, since you claim to have used the quatrains for predictions, one must assume that you can.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not suggesting my comments be included in the article so whether or not they are original research (they're not really in any event) is irrelevant. My main points, as stated (and not yet addressed) are: a) opinion, even opinion from primary academic sources, particularly where they are judgements should have caveats such as "it is claimed", or it has been argued" or "critics maintain" or some such thing to at least demonstrate to the reader that someone has claimed something rather than it being a matter of documented fact in the same way as someone's date of birth for example. It just seems to me, and others (see above and below) that this maks the article appear biased and these caveats would, I think, go a long way to addressing this point; and b) the points in question, due to their nature, cannot in any event be seen as documented fact - that is, the appropriate amount of specificity for a prediction to count as a prediction is a matter of personal taste and no one, not even the most informed commentator on Nostradamus, is in any position to be considered the sole judge of this. This is why the "whatsoever" statement needs to be amended. If you see below I have attempted a rewriting of the second paragraph which, while fairly hastily done, I think better covers the points made without the contentious stuff that many on this page feel is wrong and have been trying to point out in a reasonable fashion.

One further point. As noted above, many on this page have been trying to point out things in a perfectly reasonable fashion and the responses from you (PL and Jim) to anyone who disagrees with you have constantly involved personal sleights, questioning of intelligence, smart-arse comments, questions/statements in French designed to show something or other, and the like. This doesn't make your answers any better or more informed or more likely to be correct; on the contrary, this makes you look like silly little schoolboys engaged in name-calling. I have only recently started trying to contribute to Wikipedia and I have noticed this same trend in a number of other places. It seems to me that a certain level of respect should automatically be given to anyone who takes the trouble to even attempt a serious point in order to improve the content of articles. Davkal 13:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that the article presents (a) certain conclusions and then carefully follows them up with (b) a comprehensive academic source-list and (c) copious reference-notes means that the conclusions are by definition those arrived at by the stated sources as listed and referenced, and not necessarily unchangeable facts sub specie aeternitatis. To that extent they are indeed 'opinions' – but informed opinions formed by specialists in the subject who know the original texts and archives, have studied them, and have presented them for peer-review. In Wikipedia that goes without saying – so why say it? Nobody who has seriously studied the stated sources could possibly say (except, possibly, in the case of Randi) that the original data presented and the inevitable conclusions drawn from them are merely 'a matter of taste', as you put it. So have you? --PL 16:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a world of difference between saying "The theory of evolution has been refuted many times", and saying "Creationists claim that the theory of evolution has been refuted many times". To solely look at creationist sources and then say in an article "the theory of evolution has been refuted many times" is just plain wrong or biased or whatever. In the case of N, there are over 200 books in Japanese alone dealing with every aspect of the man - you haven't read them all, and neither have any of your sources.


 * [Curiously, I am well aware of this. But this doesn't necessarily mean that they are all of Japanese provenance. Some of them, in fact, are my own. Others are taken from among those listed among this article's Sources. Much the same applies to books on him in Thailand, Israel, Russia, Poland, Turkey, Greece, Italy and Germany, come to that. Not that I get very fat out of them, mind! :( Even Shoko Asahara, who published quite a few of them, got much of his information from Michel Chomarat, who is in our source list and is the publisher of fascimiles of several of Nostradamus's originals listed at the top: in fact he went to far as to visit Chomarat in Lyon to consult him just before his cult's infamous Tokyo subway sarin gas attacks.]

Yet, you boldly pronounce that your sources have all the material that matters on any point and are therefore free to cite their opinions and conclusions as fact (e.g., no one's ever predicted anything, everyone takes liberty with the translations etc. etc.), without the caveat "X claims that...". If you can see what would be wrong with producing an article like the one on evolution then you should be able to see what many on this page are saying about the article on N. That is, it reads as a one-sided account in many places and while I can't speak for others here, I think a few caveats such as "X says..." would make a world of difference. Davkal 16:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody 'boldly pronounced that your sources have all the material that matters on any point'. It is simply that they are the sources on which the article is based. See the top piece on my User Page regarding this. Re your suggestion that any given statement be related specifically to those sources, please see proposed changes below. --PL 08:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

translation needed
Hi,

I would appreciate some help to translate in English the below extract of Nostradamus:

Comment ilz signifioient l'homme qui auroit vescu son juste eage.

L'homme qu'auroit acomply son droit eage

Et qu'a vescu jusques au terme parfaict

Signifier nous voulant ce passaige,

Une corneille font metre en vif pourtraict

Car elle vit cent ans de bien long traict,

Cessi vray estre ilz feurent consentens,

L'egiptien an estoit de par tel trait

Qu'il contenoit par lors quatre cens ans.

Much appreciated!

Cheers,

Pete


 * Ah well! Alas, that's not one of those from the Orus Apollo manuscript that I translated in my Unknown Nostradamus. But given that it will give people here some idea of what is involved in the book, let's have a go, bearing in mind that, to be a proper, representative translation, it needs to scan and be in rhyming verse (!) – which necessarily involves a certain amount of adjustment and/or padding, especially given Nostradamus's typically vague syntax (likewise governed by the need to scan and rhyme):


 * How they signified a man who has lived to a ripe old age


 * The man who a full, ripe old age shall know
 * And reach thereby his full and proper term;
 * That passing wishing fully to affirm
 * They put a living portrait of a crow,
 * For it doth live a span of five score years.
 * They were agreed that this indeed was true,
 * Th' Egyptian year being so made, it appears,
 * That it of years four hundred did accrue.

« Th’Egyptian year = four hundred » (One year = 400) ? Very strange… There must be a mistake in your translation !!!


 * Bear in mind, though, that this extract from Nostradamus's translation of the Latin version of a Greek book on Egyptian hieroglyphs (a) is ill-informed, and (b) is poetry, not a piece of legal prose! --PL 09:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And all this years and years before the Rosetta Stone was found. ;P   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. The actual meanings of the hieroglyphs weren't known at the time. Champollion wouldn't come along until another two-and-a-half centuries at least – and Nostradamus didn't predict him, either! ;) --PL 10:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Does Not Conform to a Neutral Point of View
I'ved added this article to the list of articles that are not NPOV due to things like this, "Since the time of publication of the book, a virtual cult has grown around Nostradamus and his Propheties. With each succeeding major disaster, such as that of 9/11, people have sought (always after the event) to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it — usually taking considerable liberties either with the original text or with the event itself. Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance" it's quiet clear that this article needs a lot of work. The Fading Light 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please show in detail how this piece does not conform to the academic sources listed and to the specific evidence presented in Nostradamus in popular culture. Then, when you discover that it does (assuming that you've even studied them) kindly remove the NPOV tag, which isn't designed to indicate that the facts recorded are different from what you would like them to be, or indeed different from what a 'democratic majority' of people would like them to be on the basis of the disreputable popular literature with which (as the sources themselves record) the English-speaking world has been hoodwinked for so long!


 * If, after three days, you have failed to show that the piece does not conform to the sources listed, or that it demonstrably lacks accuracy in some other way, the tag will be removed anyway, since you will not be disputing the neutrality and accuracy of the article in terms specified by Wikipedia. --PL 08:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that this article went through a substantial peer-review process to achieve FA status, the NPOV tag appears to have been placed based on FL's own POV, and hence unwarranted. FL needs to understand that NPOV does not mean that one cannot call a spade a spade.  I am removing the tag.
 * BTW, this article is to appear as the featured article on 5/30/2006 -- something that would not ooccur wre the article not in conformity with the NPOV guidelines.
 * Finally, as the quote in question is sourced, FL hasn't a leg to stand on. I would suggest FL take a thorough look through NPOV guidelines before making any further unsubstantiated accusations.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I support that. --PL 15:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe that you ignored the fact that I quoted part of the article that is BLATANTLY NPOV in italics. Maybe a couple of people here need some reading comprehension courses. Nor did you even bother WAITING three days before removing the NPOV tags. Also I am willing to state that not all sources can be considered accurate, did the source sited for the quote come from a site that is already critical of Nostradamus or from a neutral source? The Fading Light 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First, ditch the caps. Second, ditch the attitude.  Third, PL's and my comprehension skills are just fine, thank you.  Fourth, the tag was removed for reasons explained in the edit summary and above.  Fifth, the section you bolded is not blatantly POV, it is stating a fact (note that you erred above in noting "blatantly NPOV").  Sixth, read WP:RS and WP:V -- the source cited clearly meets the criteria of both policies.  Seventh, reread WP:NPOV and try to avoid the common misperception of "Neutral" point of view.  Eighth, looking at your edit history (a whopping 208 edits, of which only 66 (31.7%) are mainspace edits) it seems that you might be best served by getting a bit more experience under your belt before attempting to lecture others on what you see as a problem with a particular article.  Finally, to quote an axiom from Nostradamus' mother tongue, "Généralement, les gens qui savent peu parlent beaucoup, et les gens qui savent beaucoup parlent peu."   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. An article (or part of it) that accurately reflects the academic sources listed is by definition not POV. Perhaps you should research what the term actually means?
 * 2. I wasn't the one who removed the tag.
 * 3. By and large, the sources listed pretty much agree with each other, and are universally regarded by the reputable, qualified scholars (both French and non-French) as standard works on the subject in their respective languages. Many of them are based on each other chronologically, and their authors have in some cases collaborated. Consequently, none of them sticks out as being less accurate than the rest, though since research is naturally ongoing, the older titles tend to be marginally less reliable. All, of them, however, are based firmly on the original texts and archives.
 * 4. The piece you quoted says nothing whatsoever about Nostradamus. It is entirely about popular commentators on his works, few of whom have studied them in the originals (or even know what the originals are), and most of whom do not even know the 16th century French in which they are written. Have you and do you?
 * 5. If you really want to know what the attitudes of the various sources are (with the exception of Randi's they are purely factual, and endlessly referenced, but I don't necessarily expect you to believe that), read the published research for yourself. --PL 11:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out one thing about this discussion. Jim, while I agree with you here, I don't think it's fair to judge anyone's ability to contribute solely based on their number of edits, mainspace or not. It may be appropriate to cut someone a little slack who is clearly a newbie, but beyond that, I believe a user should be judged based on their contributions and words alone. - Torgo 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite all the crap that FL has taken, he's pretty clearly right, in my opinion. The article has a strong de-bunker's POV. The fact that the de-bunking position is correct does not excuse, for example, a number of sneer phrases and the absence of detailed presentation of the pro-prophetical position, though there must have been tomes written on the subject.--Chris 01:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article debunks nobody but the perennial popular falsifiers of his prophecies. --PL 08:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Methinks, PL, that some people are looking for the mystery, rather than factual history. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Did they ever do anything else? ;) --PL 10:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "the neutral point of view is a point of view... that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." You think this article reads like it's not opposed to believers of Nostradamus?  "Perennial falsifiers" doesn't carry a value judgment?  A phrase like "He is widely regarded as a seer" would go a long way.  Or presenting some of the texts that make people feel this way.  As it is, this article is definitely not NPOV, and it's a disgrace that it's FA.  But, hey, I've posted <50 edits, so what do I know? 80.169.138.156 11:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is not in opposition to its subject. It is in opposition to a particular (false) view held of its subject. Be precise. Argyrios 12:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was precise. "...opposed to believers of..."  And it's exactly the opposition to this view - that Nostradamus is considered a prophet (by whomever) - that makes this POV.


 * You were not precise. The subject of the article is Nostradamus. The article is not opposed to Nostradamus. It reports the historical Nostradamus in a neutral way. The subject of the article is not Belief by Certain People that Nostradamus Predicted the Future. That the article is opposed to the belief that Nostradamus predicted the future does not, therefore, violate the guideline that an article must not be opposed to its subject. If there were a widespread false belief that Napoleon shat gold, it wouldn't be "opposition to Napoleon" to correctly debunk it in the article. Argyrios 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the lack of distinction between "He wrote predictions of the future" and "The predictions were wrong/vague/misquoted" is the crux of the issue here. As it reads now, the article gives an uninformed reader no chance to make up their own mind. Compare to the articles on Graham Hancock or Intelligent Design, equally polarising topics, and far more NPOV. 80.169.138.156 14:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article reflects exactly (as it should) the conclusions of the academic sources listed. Wikipedia rules forbid it to do anything else. Unlike the sources' authors, people who do not even begin to know the subject (let alone 16th century French) are in no position to 'make up their own minds'. Wikipedia is not a democratic polling organisation. --PL 15:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Readers of a NPOV article are in no position to make up their own minds? You're right this is not democratic, it's starting to sound quite the opposite...


 * Of course! Facts aren't an à la carte menu. --PL 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article does not reflect the simple fact that many people believe Nostradamus' writings were prophetic. The tone of the article is strongly sceptical which, while no doubt factually accurate, contributes nothing to the understanding of why he is a household name.  Wikipedia's own article on prophet lists Nostradamus among them, a perspective this article certainly wouldn't support.  (And don't run off and edit "prophet" just 'cause I mentioned it.) 80.169.138.156 15:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First, the snide accusation was unnecessary. Second that Wiki lists him in the article profet means nothing other than the fact that it was the opinion of thoise working on that article that he belonged there.  You are in essence making an argument from authority, which is, as I'm sure you know, a fallacy.  Third, see Nostradamus in popular culture for the discussion you seek.  There is a rather substantive difference between writing about Nostradamus' life and works, and the rabidity of his followers.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? My eyes must be deceiving me, then. I could have sworn it said: "Nostradamus enthusiasts have credited him with predicting numerous events in world history, including the French Revolution, the atomic bomb, the rise of Adolf Hitler, the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and even the death of Diana, Princess of Wales."


 * As for the 'tone', the article is not skeptical. It is purely factual. It simply states what the recognised academic sources have discovered about him from the original texts and archives. Skeptical this might sound to those who have swallowed all the modern populist rubbish that has been published about him. But even he didn't claim to be a prophet, as you can see from his own quotes in the article itself. 'Out of the horses' mouth...' --PL 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Factual tone
Sorry, PL, the tone of the article is in many places not remotely factual. It is argumentative and tendentious. From your lead:

"Since the time of publication of the book, a virtual cult has grown around Nostradamus and his Propheties. With each succeeding major disaster people have sought (always after the event) to find a quatrain (or two) that 'predicts' it — usually taking considerable liberties either with the original text or with the event itself. Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance."


 * virtual cult - tendentious
 * Please suggest an alternative expression, then (it's not mine).


 * each succeeding major disaster - really? every one? In fact, no - it's tendentious hyperbole
 * Yes, every one! If you cared to go into the archives of alt.prophecies.nostradamus, you'd see the proof.


 * (always after the event) - argumentative, also note the sneer italics (which someone reinserted after they were removed - correctly - yesterday)
 * Could work without the italics. Amend accordingly? The rest is fact.


 * "predicts" - sneer quotes
 * Perhaps 'allegedly predicts'?


 * usually taking considerable liberties - sweeping statement and argumentative (also cliché'd, but I'm not specifically complaining about that)
 * But true.


 * Yet - argumentative
 * No, merely presenting the other side of the argument. I'd have thought you'd have approved of that.


 * whatsoever - tendentious (clearly wrong: as you know, some events have been predicted in very broad and sweeping terms - suggesting that you've used the word whatsoever purely as a rhetorical flourish)
 * Could be omitted. Perhaps you'd care to make these small amendments, then, if you can do so without wrecking the whole piece? --PL 09:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me assure you that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party follower of crank occult beliefs.--Chris 16:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi PL, thanks for your comments. I agree that some of my complaints are fairly fine matters of of judgement. I'd say the version that emerged over the course of yesterday is adequate, so I've reverted to it. The bigger problem, however, is that this sort of rhetoric pervades the article and mars its potential. Moreover, it actually undermines the article's effectiveness as a skeptical critique, since semi-believers in the occult will just dismiss it as propaganda.--Chris 14:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I and others disagree with you. Might I suggest floating your proposed improvements to the above paragraph here first, so that we can all discuss them and then incorporate them into the article once consensus has been achieved? --PL 16:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I see why history is not as popular as it once was -- statements of fact are scary things and they ruin the mystery of an event or person. While Chris may find "usually taking considerable liberties" to be a "sweeping statement and argumentative", it is instead accurate.  The reason for taking these liberties is two-fold: 1) because there is an overwhelming desire to prove that Nostradamus predicted something (anything), and/or, 2) a complete inability to read Middle French.  To not state this fact would be to do a disservice to accuracy.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim, tone is a matter of style, not content. I agree that "taking considerable liberties" is not egregiously biased, but I'd still call it biased. The language that emerged yesterday is better and says effectively the same thing.--Chris 14:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Chris, agreed to an extent -- but tone is used to give life to language, and to add a layer of meaning that mere words themselves might not provide. In all honesty, I really saw no substantive improvements in the language that emerged on Wednesday, although in all honesty, with 400 people editing the article at once it is sometimes difficult to see the good when it is surrounded by vandalism and other very strange edits.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is Nostradamus so popular? Which of his writings gave him the stature to be read centuries later?  Why do his followers believe him?  I'd think these would be relevant issues to raise in any article about him.  Here it seems any discussion about his work is forbidden for fear of lending him even a hint of credibility.


 * Nostradamus is not some fruitcake snake oil salesman, he is arguably the most recognisable and accepted seer in the world today - even if, ironically, his prophecies are wholly unsubstantiated. Fact: A single book on him sold 2 million copies - in Japan. http://www.rickross.com/reference/millennium/millennium19.html (an AP wire OK as a reference?) This is the kind of thing that should be included to give a balanced picture of the man, and is not present in either article about him.  The Popular Culture entry makes no mention of the prophecies (London fire of 1666, French Revolution, names of Popes) upon which his reputation is built.  In fact, the quality of writing throughout is poor, the tone strident, and the text riddled with POV snideness like "Such typical popular pieces of linguistic sleight of hand are particularly easy to carry out when the would-be commentator knows no French to start with..."


 * As much mention is made of Wiki standards and documented fact, I find it interesting that it's the same few names defending the factual/sceptics' position, that similar debates are ongoing in other sections of this discussion page, and that a far more NPOV opening paragraph of the article than first appeared this morning has been up for - 6 hours now? This taken in conjunction with the sloppy prose (that is nevertheless FA) call the whole peer review process into question.  Perpetuating the argement only does further disservice to wikipedia. 80.169.138.156 16:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 'Tis true that commentators' book sales data (including the Japanese ones) are not included in the article, but then they are not Nostradamus's original books, which makes the point pretty marginal to the article, doesn't it? Meanwhile, if his reputation is built upon prophecies of the 1666 Fire of London and the French Revolution, then it is ill-deserved. No quatrain predicts the former (except in the fevered minds of would-be commentators with little knowledge of 16th century French), and he merely predicts a 'common advent' at some unspecified time in the future (it nearly happened in the 1590s). The names of the Popes have nothing at all to do with him: you're probably thinking of St Malachy. --PL 09:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear anon, should one wish to hurl an accusation of "sloppy prose" about, it would seem to me vital that said hurler should exhibit impeccable writing skills.
 * As to your criticism of the "Popular Culture" section, I am sure that you noticed that that section referenced the Nostradamus in popular culture article, and as such was merely a summary. If you feel that the main popular culture article offers insufficient coverage of the many wonders of Nostradamus and his prohesies, take your case to that page.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because a bunch of people believe something doesn't mean it should be presented as an equal view to fact. Lots of people believe there are alligators in the New York sewer system, but it's patently false. We can't dumb down the encyclopedia out of fear that people will (*gasp*) actually learn something they didn't know before reading.


 * Please distinguish between tone and content.--Chris 18:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, user 80.169.138.156 makes a number of excellent points. Where is the discussion of the rise of N's reputation in occult circles? The discussion of his most celebrated alleged predictions (the London Fire etc.)? This is easily the worst FA article I've read, and a real failure of the FA process. Not to say the article doesn't have potential or that the primary authors haven't done an enormous amount of work. But someone else needs to take it in hand if it is ever to be worthy of FA status--Chris 18:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * As is pointed out above, nothing in Nostradamus (not even quatrain II.51, which is based on the Templar Affair of 1304-14 [Prevost and Lemesurier, op. cit]) predicted the Great Fire of London. Perhaps the term 'virtual cult' in the leading section covers 'N's reputation in occult circles'? Beyond that it is difficult to be specific. --PL 09:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As I see it, this is where you've gone down the garden path in this article. You seem preoccupied with the fact N's prophecies are false and that his occult interpreters are ignorant, deluded, or fraudulent. As a result, you've passed over a lot of potentially interesting material. How has N's reputation waxed and waned? When did these claims emerge, and what is their basis? Surely there are some at least interesting correspondences between the prophecies and actual events, something that would impress an only moderately credulous person? The article gives very little sense of what the prophecies are like or what aspects of them have impressed various people over the centuries. There's very little to put N in the context of the magic, astrology, and alchemy of the early modern period. How does he relate to a figure like John Dee, for example, or Paracelsus? You give the impression that he was something of a charlatan, but never explicitly state that, you just toss in various asides and slighting turns of phrase. Give the issue a paragraph and write in an impartial way elsewhere.--Chris 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you have some interesting points there. The question is: how many of them can reasonably be included in a mere Wikipedia summary-article (which is already many times longer than the corresponding article in Britannica, for example)? The question of the waxing and waning of his reputation, to my mind, belongs under Nostradamus in popular culture. The question of his prophecies' relevance to events, and of what they are like, is to some extent covered by the same article, as well as by the opening section of the main article. I've a feeling that going into such complex subjects as contemporary magic, astrology and alchemy would be to exceed the scope of the article. Relating him to John Dee or Paracelsus would be interesting, but unfortunately there is no link, even though they were contemporaries: Nostradamus never mentions either, even in his private correspondence. So reporting a 'nil' would be rather pointless. --PL 15:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Had you stated "coincidences" rather than "correspondences" I would agree with you. Earlier we discussed "current meaning", which I proposed is really more a matter of popular meaning, and in the sense of the popular meaning, correspondence tends to imply the hint of causation.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Additionally, what Chris asks for belongs in the Nostradamus in popular culture article. Also, in noting a number of changes Chris made or proposed, it seems that he is  missing the sense of the words used (or "tone", as he will).  To wit, "in advance" has a very definite purpose in that sentence, and his argument that it is redundant vis-à-vis "predict" is indicative of not comprehending the semantics.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of this material might well go in the other article, I agree. It has essentially the same flaws as this one, and, I gather, the same primary authors. By the same argument, most of the content if "Role of interpretation" and "Popular culture" should also move over. That might be a good idea actually, since the article is somewhat lengthy, and some topics remain to be covered.--Chris 16:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Still missing the point - it doesn't matter if he's a fraud, the issue here is that he's popular - hugely so. Neglecting to mention that does not give an accurate portrait of him as a historical figure.


 * Funny -- my eyes must be seeing something different from yours. So far as I can see, the lead section already says that about three times... --PL 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Take a look at the article on Uri Geller, the disgraced and discredited spoon bender - that entry is fairer and more NPOV than this one.


 * Did he also teach you invisibility, or just anonymity? --PL 16:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick cleanup
"which consists of one unrhymed and 941 rhymed quatrains, grouped into nine sets of 100 and one of 42," Theres either 942 quatrains or the last century is only 41 quatrains long. Bit of a counting error. --Nog64


 * The statement is perfectly correct. Try looking at them. --PL 08:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, 900+41+1 = 942. I'm missing the math problem here.

Does Not Conform to a Neutral Point of View
I'ved added this article to the list of articles that are not NPOV due to things like this, "Since the time of publication of the book, a virtual cult has grown around Nostradamus and his Propheties. With each succeeding major disaster, such as that of 9/11, people have sought (always after the event) to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it — usually taking considerable liberties either with the original text or with the event itself. Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance" it's quiet clear that this article needs a lot of work. The Fading Light 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please show in detail how this piece does not conform to the academic sources listed and to the specific evidence presented in Nostradamus in popular culture. Then, when you discover that it does (assuming that you've even studied them) kindly remove the NPOV tag, which isn't designed to indicate that the facts recorded are different from what you would like them to be, or indeed different from what a 'democratic majority' of people would like them to be on the basis of the disreputable popular literature with which (as the sources themselves record) the English-speaking world has been hoodwinked for so long!


 * If, after three days, you have failed to show that the piece does not conform to the sources listed, or that it demonstrably lacks accuracy in some other way, the tag will be removed anyway, since you will not be disputing the neutrality and accuracy of the article in terms specified by Wikipedia. --PL 08:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Given that this article went through a substantial peer-review process to achieve FA status, the NPOV tag appears to have been placed based on FL's own POV, and hence unwarranted. FL needs to understand that NPOV does not mean that one cannot call a spade a spade.  I am removing the tag.
 * BTW, this article is to appear as the featured article on 5/30/2006 -- something that would not ooccur wre the article not in conformity with the NPOV guidelines.
 * Finally, as the quote in question is sourced, FL hasn't a leg to stand on. I would suggest FL take a thorough look through NPOV guidelines before making any further unsubstantiated accusations.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I support that. --PL 15:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe that you ignored the fact that I quoted part of the article that is BLATANTLY NPOV in italics. Maybe a couple of people here need some reading comprehension courses. Nor did you even bother WAITING three days before removing the NPOV tags. Also I am willing to state that not all sources can be considered accurate, did the source sited for the quote come from a site that is already critical of Nostradamus or from a neutral source? The Fading Light 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First, ditch the caps. Second, ditch the attitude.  Third, PL's and my comprehension skills are just fine, thank you.  Fourth, the tag was removed for reasons explained in the edit summary and above.  Fifth, the section you bolded is not blatantly POV, it is stating a fact (note that you erred above in noting "blatantly NPOV").  Sixth, read WP:RS and WP:V -- the source cited clearly meets the criteria of both policies.  Seventh, reread WP:NPOV and try to avoid the common misperception of "Neutral" point of view.  Eighth, looking at your edit history (a whopping 208 edits, of which only 66 (31.7%) are mainspace edits) it seems that you might be best served by getting a bit more experience under your belt before attempting to lecture others on what you see as a problem with a particular article.  Finally, to quote an axiom from Nostradamus' mother tongue, "Généralement, les gens qui savent peu parlent beaucoup, et les gens qui savent beaucoup parlent peu."   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. An article (or part of it) that accurately reflects the academic sources listed is by definition not POV. Perhaps you should research what the term actually means?
 * 2. I wasn't the one who removed the tag.
 * 3. By and large, the sources listed pretty much agree with each other, and are universally regarded by the reputable, qualified scholars (both French and non-French) as standard works on the subject in their respective languages. Many of them are based on each other chronologically, and their authors have in some cases collaborated. Consequently, none of them sticks out as being less accurate than the rest, though since research is naturally ongoing, the older titles tend to be marginally less reliable. All, of them, however, are based firmly on the original texts and archives.
 * 4. The piece you quoted says nothing whatsoever about Nostradamus. It is entirely about popular commentators on his works, few of whom have studied them in the originals (or even know what the originals are), and most of whom do not even know the 16th century French in which they are written. Have you and do you?
 * 5. If you really want to know what the attitudes of the various sources are (with the exception of Randi's they are purely factual, and endlessly referenced, but I don't necessarily expect you to believe that), read the published research for yourself. --PL 11:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out one thing about this discussion. Jim, while I agree with you here, I don't think it's fair to judge anyone's ability to contribute solely based on their number of edits, mainspace or not. It may be appropriate to cut someone a little slack who is clearly a newbie, but beyond that, I believe a user should be judged based on their contributions and words alone. - Torgo 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Despite all the crap that FL has taken, he's pretty clearly right, in my opinion. The article has a strong de-bunker's POV. The fact that the de-bunking position is correct does not excuse, for example, a number of sneer phrases and the absence of detailed presentation of the pro-prophetical position, though there must have been tomes written on the subject.--Chris 01:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article debunks nobody but the perennial popular falsifiers of his prophecies. --PL 08:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Methinks, PL, that some people are looking for the mystery, rather than factual history. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Did they ever do anything else? ;) --PL 10:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "the neutral point of view is a point of view... that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." You think this article reads like it's not opposed to believers of Nostradamus?  "Perennial falsifiers" doesn't carry a value judgment?  A phrase like "He is widely regarded as a seer" would go a long way.  Or presenting some of the texts that make people feel this way.  As it is, this article is definitely not NPOV, and it's a disgrace that it's FA.  But, hey, I've posted <50 edits, so what do I know? 80.169.138.156 11:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is not in opposition to its subject. It is in opposition to a particular (false) view held of its subject. Be precise. Argyrios 12:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was precise. "...opposed to believers of..."  And it's exactly the opposition to this view - that Nostradamus is considered a prophet (by whomever) - that makes this POV.


 * You were not precise. The subject of the article is Nostradamus. The article is not opposed to Nostradamus. It reports the historical Nostradamus in a neutral way. The subject of the article is not Belief by Certain People that Nostradamus Predicted the Future. That the article is opposed to the belief that Nostradamus predicted the future does not, therefore, violate the guideline that an article must not be opposed to its subject. If there were a widespread false belief that Napoleon shat gold, it wouldn't be "opposition to Napoleon" to correctly debunk it in the article. Argyrios 01:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the lack of distinction between "He wrote predictions of the future" and "The predictions were wrong/vague/misquoted" is the crux of the issue here. As it reads now, the article gives an uninformed reader no chance to make up their own mind. Compare to the articles on Graham Hancock or Intelligent Design, equally polarising topics, and far more NPOV. 80.169.138.156 14:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article reflects exactly (as it should) the conclusions of the academic sources listed. Wikipedia rules forbid it to do anything else. Unlike the sources' authors, people who do not even begin to know the subject (let alone 16th century French) are in no position to 'make up their own minds'. Wikipedia is not a democratic polling organisation. --PL 15:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Readers of a NPOV article are in no position to make up their own minds? You're right this is not democratic, it's starting to sound quite the opposite...


 * Of course! Facts aren't an à la carte menu. --PL 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The article does not reflect the simple fact that many people believe Nostradamus' writings were prophetic. The tone of the article is strongly sceptical which, while no doubt factually accurate, contributes nothing to the understanding of why he is a household name.  Wikipedia's own article on prophet lists Nostradamus among them, a perspective this article certainly wouldn't support.  (And don't run off and edit "prophet" just 'cause I mentioned it.) 80.169.138.156 15:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First, the snide accusation was unnecessary. Second that Wiki lists him in the article profet means nothing other than the fact that it was the opinion of thoise working on that article that he belonged there.  You are in essence making an argument from authority, which is, as I'm sure you know, a fallacy.  Third, see Nostradamus in popular culture for the discussion you seek.  There is a rather substantive difference between writing about Nostradamus' life and works, and the rabidity of his followers.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? My eyes must be deceiving me, then. I could have sworn it said: "Nostradamus enthusiasts have credited him with predicting numerous events in world history, including the French Revolution, the atomic bomb, the rise of Adolf Hitler, the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and even the death of Diana, Princess of Wales."


 * As for the 'tone', the article is not skeptical. It is purely factual. It simply states what the recognised academic sources have discovered about him from the original texts and archives. Skeptical this might sound to those who have swallowed all the modern populist rubbish that has been published about him. But even he didn't claim to be a prophet, as you can see from his own quotes in the article itself. 'Out of the horses' mouth...' --PL 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Alert, perhaps!
Shouldn't this article be protected, since it's on the main page? --M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 (T 00:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why it should NOT be protected, except to clean up after vandal bot attacks. Having articled linked from the Main Page editable is advertisement for the Wiki concept "...the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" as the Main Page states. Kusma (討論) 00:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Awesome
I knew it would become a featured article soon. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

WWIII
Somewhere on the internet I saw a translated quatrain disected and noted about talking about a possible WWIII. It had pretty considerable detail. Something about Russia invading Eastern Europe and getting as far West as Italy and a major battle in Genoa. Other than that, I don't remember much. If anyone knows what I'm talking about, please verify what I am saying.Cameron Nedland 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nostradamus says absolutely nothing about all this. You're merely talking about the popular falsifiers. --PL 08:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh...sorry?Cameron Nedland 19:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see the new 'Alternative views' section of the article. --PL 09:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

James Randi
James Randi has written extensively about Nostradamus. Shouldn't this article be linked to him in some way? Maybe just a mention of him? Winick88


 * His book is listed in the Sources (or was, last time I looked), mainly because his debunking of the popular falsifiers of Nostradamus is difficult to better. --PL

Just an interesting note that questions the validity of a sentence
"Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance"

I find that a little hard to believe. While I hardly ever believe in prophecies/soothsayers I was impressed at childhood by Nostradamus and his "sucesses" in predicting based on the past events. For whatever it was worth there was a quartrain predicting a nuclear attack on New York and when my brother chose to go to N. America I wanted him to go anywhere but New York, just to be on the safer side. He then finally moved to Toronto exactly a month prior to the 9/11 attack. Every time I think about that it makes me wonder and marvel at his writings (probably even mistranslations that led to me avoiding NY) that saved a life.

The translation was done by Erica Cheetam and in it says New York attacks specifically with the illustration on the cover page depicting attacks on the WTC among other things. I'm sure many who have done research on Nostradamus' work must be able to cull this piece of information and atleast prove that his prediction (with un/intentional interpretation by the modern day author) could have been partially right in this case. Anyone? --Idleguy 09:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The 'prediction' was not Nostradamus's, but Erika Cheetham's (as subsequently taken up in Orson Welles's famous film/video)! Nostradamus never mentioned either nuclear attacks or New York City. Nor is the latter at Nostradamus's stated latitude of 45 degrees, as Erika suggested. Nor, indeed, was there a nuclear attack anyway. Please see 'Nostradamus in popular culture' on this. Reviews of Cheetham and other authors can be found on my User Page. --PL 09:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. It seems you've done extensive work on Nostradamus, and I can understand that it was more like a loose prediction that was translated by Erika to make it sound New York city (those twin brothers analogy etc. seemed convincing.) But it seems by some sheer luck or coincidence she seems to have got it somewhere near the bull's eye on this one. It wasn't a nuke but it was pretty devastating. And from personal experience I must add I am not sorry to have heeded the "prediction" or whatever it was. --Idleguy 12:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Point taken! ;) --PL 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To say the least. In any case, Cheetham (pronounced Cheat'em) is a charlatan.  Si tu peux trouver un quatrain spécifique dans le français original qui mentionne les armes nucléaires, comme New York de nom, le partager svp avec nous. Merci.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  15:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There is nothing mentioned in the quatrains specifically about New York or nukes. I haven't come across anyone who predicts in simple terms, instead they try to confuse others and have an "out" as Randy says. In the end my take on this is that the mistranslation and misinterpretation (intentional or otherwise by cheetam) may have resulted in a semi-spectacular prediction. That's all. Translation courtesy of Babel fish :D --Idleguy 15:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Cripes, Jim62sch, if that's an example of your French, then you shouldn't be claiming expertise in interpreting 16th century texts.--Chris 17:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't claim that I did...I asked others if they had that expertise, as they seemed to be implying that they did, (although I do know enough about Middle French to be able to work most of it out, in part by relying on Latin). As for the French in the above, I read it better than I speak it as I have very little chance to converse in it (besides, I was rushing, which is always a bad thing).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You claim native-like ability on your user page; maybe you should scale that back to fr-3.--Chris 16:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For writing, you are probably correct. Odd how easy reading French is for me, but how difficult it is for me to write it as well as I'd like.  Of course, were I to be able to practice, it'd get better quickly.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe Cheetham used Bablefish to make her prediction, a task even more impossible than using it to translate the Divine Comedy.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

wait, I get it!
oh, okay, so it's not a prediction if I predict something, and it happens. For example, later, we will have wheeled rovers on Venus, much as we do today on Mars.

When that happens, and someone (always after the fact) from my massive cult following (for the sake of parallelism let's assume I become for whatever reason bar none the most famous predicter of humanity's space exploration achievements who ever lived), returns to my trite writings to quote my sentence above, then it's not really a prediction, more like a "prediction" or a "pre-"-diction or pre-"diction", or maybe even a "pre-" "-diction". Why? Because God forbid an encyclopedia entry of a man who is non-notable (except as the most famous person with x job title who ever lived--where x is notable enough to warrant an extensive Wikipedia article) should reflect the facts surrounding the notability of the subject in question. Quick, let's all replace all the articles on famous magicians with refutations of their "magic"!


 * Well, no, not really. It's more like if you said "Rounded will be the legs of the chariot/and strange the skies above/but much will be learned/and great the astonishment" and one of your follows claimed this was a spot-on prediction of wheeled rovers on Venus because obviously "strange the skies above" is a reference to the cloud cover of the planet and "great the astonishment" when translated into Swedish becomes an anagram for "sort of {like} Ven(u)s " as long as you leave out three letters and turn the vowels into different vowels. - DavidWBrooks 17:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Will you grant that if later we will have wheeled rovers on Venus, much as today we have on Mars, then I will have been proved correct in my original prediction? viz :
 * later, we will have wheeled rovers on Venus, much as we do today on Mars.
 * 82.131.184.90 22:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume you're not serious [please remember to assume good faith. -Ed], but in case you are: yes, in those circumstances you will have made a trivial and uninteresting statement that could be called a prediction within the dictionary definition but reflects nothing on your ability to fortell the future. - DavidWBrooks 23:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, now let's drive the final coffin into the argument: Will you grant that insofar as a given meteorologist (again for the sake of parellelism let's say he's bar none the most famous meteorologist who ever lived and that meteorology warrants an extensive write-up) makes a "trivial and uninteresting" statement (so uninteresting in fact that his statement concerns the archetype of banal subjects -- namely the weather) that in your words "could be called a prediction within the dictionary definition", you are asserting that this "reflects nothing on his ability to foretell [any aspect of] the future.". I defy you to say that nothing a meteorologist can do or say can reflect on his ability to foretell any aspect of the future.  (If we have the option of waiting to see what actually happens.  Maybe you just forgot to add that nothing can reflect on our ability to foretell the future  "...except the future!" . )


 * I further defy you to admit that insofar as you don't withdraw your statement that making a correct prediction "reflects nothing (your word) on your ability to foretell the future" you acknowledge that in your opinion the "ability to foretell the future" is completely independent of actually predicting the future. HYPOTHETICALLY, at the exact moment I'm proved right, or the minute my competition is proved wrong, on a given prediction (say they say "no person will ever be born in space" whereas through space tourism this actually happens), your view of our respective abilities, at the time we made those predictions, to foretell the future does not change!  In other words, admit that what actually happens compared with what a given meteorologist said would happen "reflects nothing on their ability to foretell the future" (literally nothing -- no information regarding this ability is learned).  I want to hear you say that.


 * 82.131.191.98 11:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC). (Say, I wonder if your "interesting" take on predictions extends to predictive physics.  Would you say that the correctness of a model's predictions reflects nothing on the model's predictive ability?  And by "would you say", I mean, "would you say that, please!" I so want to hear you say that.)

I find the possibility of wheeled rovers on venus fascinating. sonofDavkal 00:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Especially given that we've yet to work out how to make a machine such as that last for any significant period of time in the hostile environment and intense atmospheric pressure on Venus.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember, Jim, we learned from DavidWBrooks above that what we're able to do (or have done) reflects nothing on what we're able to do (or might do). You fall into the error newly identified by Brooks: supposing that science or logic has any bearing on space exploration.  Don't worry, I made that error, too, before Brooks set me straight.  Now, until I get his answers, I must insist that you leave "facts" out of the question, since some innocent user could fail to realize that facts "never reflect anything about anything).

Tone
Tone of this article doesn't seem encyclopedic. The parenthetical asides are biased and unnecessary. 24.172.255.130 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Please specify, and suggest improvements where you think they are necessary. --PL 09:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that the intial text keeps changing back and forth. Many suggestions have been made above but all, apparently, ignored. For example, it is clearly argued above that the use of the word "whatsoever" in the second paragraph of the opening section not only renders the claim false but also makes the tone of the piece seem biased - a sort of "that'll teach 'em" approach. I would suggest something more like the following.

"Since the publication of his Propheties, which has been continuously in print since his death, Nostradamus has attracted an almost cult following amongst his many believers who credit him with predicting numerous major world events. In contrast, most serious scholars maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus' quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power. In support of this view critics argue that to date no one is known to have succeded in interpreting any of Nostradamus' quatrains specifically enough to allow a clear identification of any event in advance."

This, I think, sums up reasonably well the current state of affairs concerning Nostradamus' popularity, his believers and their detractors. It also seems to me a far more reasonable section to include right at the start of an article about Nostradamus, inasmuch as it covers what is one of the most remarkable things about the man - his continuing popularity and the debate surrounding his work more than 500 years after his death - without the "sniping" tone of the original.Davkal 10:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, not bad. One or two corrections needed, though: there is no actual proof that they have been continuously in print since his death, for example – in fact the official bibliographies rather suggest otherwise. I would propose:


 * "Since the publication of his book entitled Les Propheties, which has rarely been out of print since his death and has always been hugely popular across the world, Nostradamus has attracted an almost cult following. His many enthusiasts, to say nothing of the popular press, credit him with predicting numerous major world events. In contrast, most serious scholars (see source-list below [internal ref?? - Jim?) maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus' quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power. In support of this view critics point out that to date no one is known to have succeeded in interpreting any of Nostradamus' quatrains specifically enough to allow a clear identification of any event in advance."


 * Is this something that we could all agree on? --PL 16:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * yes, as regard this paragraph I think it is keeps all the important stuff you want to say but presents in a far better manner. Davkal 16:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The rhetoric is still way over the top. I don't have time to suggest an edit right now. Actually, the current version of 10:43, 1 June 2006, by user 12.106.111.10, strikes me as pretty good. This paragraph, more than any other in the article, has been worked over by many individuals in good Wikipedia fashion. I'd keep it more or less as is.--Chris 18:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think I would now disagree with the proposed text myself. The last sentence is in fact a piece of 'original research'. Besides, it is inaccurate, since it is not only critics who make that assertion. I would therefore propose instead:


 * "Since the publication of his book entitled Les Propheties, which has rarely been out of print since his death and has always been hugely popular across the world, Nostradamus has attracted an almost cult following. His many enthusiasts, to say nothing of the popular press, credit him with predicting numerous major world events. In contrast, most of the academic sources listed below maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus' quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power. Moreover, none of them offers any evidence that anyone has ever succeeded in interpreting any of Nostradamus' quatrains specifically enough to allow a clear identification of any event in advance."


 * Can we agree on that? --PL 08:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with that, but I can already hear the objections to fact. My only objection is that the "them" in "none of them" is ambiguous.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can live with it. Maybe change "cult" to "cult-like"? Re Jim's comment, maybe the last sentence could begin "It has never been shown that..."--Chris 13:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll give it until tomorrow morning, in case anybody else wants to comment. Once it's 'in', it can always be marginally tweaked as necessary. Jim's point duly noted. --PL 15:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

New Research
The last paragraph in the section entitled Works reads as follows:

Since his death only the Prophecies have continued to be popular, but in this case they have been quite extraordinarily so. Indeed, they have seldom, if ever, been out of print. This may be due partly to popular unease about the future, partly to people's desire to see their lives in some kind of overall cosmic perspective and so to give meaning to them — but above all, possibly, to their vagueness and lack of dating, which enables them to be wheeled out after every major dramatic event and retrospectively claimed as "hits". (my emphasis)

This is pure speculation and or new research and should not really be included I think. Davkal 12:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Another quite reasonable point. I would propose instead:


 * "Since his death only the Prophecies have continued to be popular, but in this case they have been quite extraordinarily so. Indeed, they have seldom, if ever, been out of print. Their vagueness and lack of dating enables them to be wheeled out after every major dramatic event and retrospectively claimed as "hits"."

In the section on Methods which begins "Nostradamus, it should be remembered..." and which purports to show that Nostradamus denied being a prophet there are several quotes from letters etc. in which Nostradamus appears to say he is not a prophet. There are two points here. Firstly, there are no notes or references in this section suggesting that these quotes have been used before by any Nostradamus scholar to support the contention that he was claiming not to be a prophet. If no such sources exist then this looks to me like new research which should not be included. If others have made similar claims then it should be referenced so that I can find out more about this surprising claim. Secondly, the quotes do not look to me like actual denials from Nostradamus but rather look representative of a peculiarity, fairly common in previous times, where authors would deliberately use such self-effacement in the preface to books etc. This does not mean that such authors are actually claiming that their books are no good, or that they are poor authors, or that they are not prophets, it simply means that they were following the trends of the day and attempting to appear humble (before God). There is also the final quote in which it seems to me that Nostradamus is saying, in a round about way, that he is making predictions.


 * The statements in question (which may indeed surprise you, but only if you haven't studied his work, but have instead believed the popular rubbish about him) are all taken directly from Nostradamus's published works, as referenced, as listed in the source-list and as available online via the external links provided. They are made in the context of distinguishing himself from the biblical prophets (and not in the context of false humility), who claimed to be spoken to directly by God. Had he claimed anything of the kind, he would probably have been had up by the Inquisition! --PL 16:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

My point was not that he did not make the statements (the sources are all cited in the article so that much is clear). My point is that to bring any set of quotes from N together to make a point that has not been made by the scholars who have studied him is almost by definition research - reason one for omitting the section. And, given that we can explain these quotes, as you do, by saying that N was merely distancing himself from biblical prophets, and biblical prophet status, so as not annoy the inquisition, there seems very little left to the argument that he did not think of himself as a "prophet" in the modern sense, ie. as one who predicts. If this is correct, then the point of the passage may well be wrong (which in turn may account for nobody having made it before) - reason two for omitting the section.Davkal 19:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Trying to suppress the evidence, are you? (I wonder why?!) Ah well, perhaps it's just as well that it's all quoted in both Brind'Amour and Lemesurier (op. cit), then! As for what sort of 'prophet' he was if not a biblical one, do bear in mind (given that astrology can't predict actual events) that the only alternative at the time was assumed to be magic –-- which would have put him even more firmly in the hands of the Inquisition! Hence, presumably, the technique he did admit to - namely projecting historical events into the future and merely attempting to 'time' them and assess their character with the aid of 'judicial' astrology. Which, as the article explains, is not by any means the same as being a prophet. --PL 09:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Davkal -- unless you've read any of the books listed as sources your statements, "Firstly, there are no notes or references in this section suggesting that these quotes have been used before by any Nostradamus scholar to support the contention that he was claiming not to be a prophet" and "My point was not that he did not make the statements (the sources are all cited in the article so that much is clear)" are beyond specious, they are ludicrous. You remind me of the Church suppressing Galileo's proof of a heliocentric universe, and forcing him to recan (although to his credit, after he had done so, he muttered, "Eppur si muove", the recanting his recantation.  In any case, the facts stand as they are.  I would suggest that you do some actual research before making further unfounded assertions.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Jim, awa n boil yer heid, I don't need to do any further research to know what "research" means. And that is one of my main points, which are not ludicrous but very straightforward. They are: 1) if the theory that N actively denied he was a prophet (or was making predictions) is in the literature on N then a note should be included letting me (and others) know who said this. 2) If this claim is not made in the literature, then drawing together a set of quotes from N to make a new point is almost the definition of new research. And 3) the quotes used do not look to me like actual denials; rather, they look like a combination of humbleness (in keeping with the times) and N's attempts to cover his back from the inquisition (which is what PL seems to suggest). Morever, in the final quote N seems to state fairly explicitly that he is making predictions. In summary; 1) if it's in the literature tell me where; 2) if it's not take it out; and 3) it may be wrong.

And, just for the record, I am in no way a believer in the prophecies of the N and I am not trying to suppress anything. What I am interested in - if you look at every point I have made so far - is in trying to improve this article. The first section, for example, to almost unanimous agreement, is now better as a result of my rewriting of it.And the facts that: a) the type of changes suggested were clearly stated in my arguments; b) I had rewrite it in line with my arguments; c)you hotly disputed all of my arguments; and d) you agreed to my proposed changes once I had written them, clearly shows just how little you understood from my arguments. I have also had a 3-day argument with you (and PL) about whether the word "mundane" means unimaginably complex - it does not.

And and, just for another record: the sun (our sun) isn't the centre of the universe. Davkal 18:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Points 1) and 2) have now been addressed in the article under Literary Sources. Perhaps Jim would care to transform my inserted notes into pucker reference-notes? (I wouldn't want to mess up the system!) As for point 3), the article simply states what Nostradamus wrote and therefore presumably meant, and relates it (on the basis of the sources cited) to what the other evidence suggests. It is not for you (or me) to speculate further in the article about what his private motives for writing it may have been, or about what private reservations he may have held about it.


 * As for 'predictions', nobody denies that he issued them (even weather-presenters do that – and nobody calls them 'prophets'). As the article explains, though, they were simply not his, any more than the weather-forecasts are normally those of the weather-presenters. Ergo he didn't (by and large) originate the prophecies, wasn't to that extent a prophet and, whether for that reason or not, (unsurprisingly) didn't claim to be – as you'd see from Brind'Amour and Lemesurier on the subject, if you bothered to read them.


 * And, just for yet another record, I have said nothing whatever here about the word 'mundane'. --PL 08:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

From your article:

"He then began his project of writing a book of one thousand quatrains, which constitute the largely undated prophecies for which he is most famous today."

and

"his relationship with the Church as a prophet and healer was excellent"

I guess that these, then, (and the other 50 like them) should be removed or amended.Davkal 12:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * PL's proposed wording: "Since his death only the Prophecies have continued to be popular, but in this case they have been quite extraordinarily so. Indeed, they have seldom, if ever, been out of print. Their vagueness and lack of dating enables them to be wheeled out after every major dramatic event and retrospectively claimed as "hits"."


 * This is not so bad (a fuller section on his Wirkungsgeschichte would be welcome, since most of his importance derives from his afterlife as an occult "prophet"). I would tone it down a bit, though:


 * "'Since his death only the Prophecies have remained extraordinarily popular. Their vagueness and lack of dating enables them to be claimed as 'hits' after any major dramatic event.'"


 * I'd leave the assertions about publication history out; they sound like speculation.--Chris 17:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm! I'd have thought that over 200 editions plus over a thousand commentaries in 450 years was worth a mention! (Perhaps we should include the two major Bibliographies in the source-list?)


 * Sorry, I was looking at another piece of text, not the one you're referring to.--Chris 16:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Consequently I'd suggest retaining my version above, slightly modified as follows:


 * "Since his death only the Prophecies have continued to be popular, but in this case they have been quite extraordinarily so. Over 200 editions of them have appeared in that time, together with over 2000 commentaries. Their popularity seems to be partly due to the fact that their vagueness and lack of dating enable them to be wheeled out after every major dramatic event and retrospectively claimed as "hits"."


 * Can we agree on that? --PL 09:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Wheeled out" is pejorative and can't stay. As a whole it could be a bit terser, and the third sentence seems to need a citation.--Chris 13:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * For that I'd suggest simply adding "(refer to Nostradamus in popular culture)". For the 'wheeled out' bit, how about: "Their popularity seems to be partly due to the fact that their vagueness and lack of dating make it easy to quote them selectively after every major dramatic event and retrospectively claim them as "hits"."


 * Not bad, but I'd suggest amending "every major dramatic event" to "major dramatic events". Let me say again that I don't believe enthusiasts have invoked N. for every such event, or at least that any Reliable Source has credibly claimed this. See for example, WP's List of disasters.--Chris 16:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again I'd refer you to the archives of alt.prophecies.nostradamus, which are their own evidence. --PL 08:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I do but make bold to predict (not that I guarantee the slightest thing at all), thanks to my researches and the consideration of what judicial Astrology promises me and sometimes gives me to know, principally in the form of warnings, so that folk may know that with which the celestial stars do threaten them. Not that I am foolish enough to pretend to be a prophet. —Open letter to Privy Councillor (later Chancellor) Birague, 15 June 1566 (I do but make bold text - my joke above; my emphasis) Davkal 13:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Did he change his name
I've reverted Jim62sch's reversion of my earlier change. The question is whether "Nostradamus, born Michel de Nostredame" is preferable to "Michel de Nostredame, commonly known as Nostradamus". So, what's the answer? Did he change his name, so that his priest, say, or the guy he bought vegetables from referred to him as Nostradamus? Or was Nostradamus merely the name under which he published his books? I've assumed the latter, but if there was a formal name change, perhaps a explicit note in the text would be appropriate.--Chris 14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's essentially irrelvant. When looking up famous people, the name by which they are known comes first, then their birth name.  That's been the standard since I've been able to read, at least, and I'm unaware of any changes.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * He had umpteen names – Michaletus de nostra domina; Michel de Nostredame; Michel Nostradamus (on his books and increasingly in his professional life from 1550)... --PL 16:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's actually interesting information. Why not include it somewhere? My impression is that an educated person of the 16th century would have regarded this proliferation of names as normal, and not really a case of adopting a string of aliases. For one thing, the need for case endings made it impossible not to Latinize a name when it was used in a Latin context. N's use of the Latin form when writing in French might a kind of charlatan's trick to impress the ignorant. Or was it a common practice? It would be interesting to know.--Chris 17:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, he actually only used the fully Latin form when writing in Latin (enrollment at Montpellier, 1529). The adoption of the '-us' form was simply standard practice among academics of the day, such as Copernicus, Erasmus et al... --PL 09:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, Jim, you've injected a sneering tone into practically every response to criticism here. I'm sure this habit makes you a lot of unnecessary enemies, and it sure as heck makes you seem thin-skinned.


 * I don't think your impression is correct, but I'll try to come up with language that satisfies both of us.


 * By the way, I'll put "virtual cult" in quotes with a [citation needed] flag. Presumably you or PL can provide the cite.--Chris 16:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It was known as a really bad day (or two)...sorry about that. I've read some of the other things you've worked on, especially Interlingua and you seem like a very knowledgable editor.  I suppose my primary source of irritation (on Wiki, (not IRL, that's a whole other bowl of wax)) was that I felt that your edits would have been better discussed here first, as I'm sure we could come up with a better version by working together rather than working at what seem to be cross-purposes.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Instead I propose adopting the proposed re-wording above, which seems pretty reasonable to me (provided that I can find it to insert when the moment comes!). But only after people have signified their agreement, which is the way all recent changes to the article should have been approached. Then the basic article should be changed. --PL 16:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Remind me what that wording is?


 * Hold on, I see it.


 * PL, I won't agree to a blanket revert of all yesterday's changes. Do remember that the WP policy of not protecting Featured Articles while they're on the front page is largely motivated by a desire to capture positive changes while the article is under scrutiny by many eyes.--Chris 17:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll propose a new, revised version of it shortly, incorporating all the changes agreed here (which is where they should be agreed), hopefully on the basis of the latest suggestions advanced above and summarised below. Remember that the article's selection as a Featured Article was based on the fact that it already satisfied the expected criteria. --PL 09:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Se my above comment about working together.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed text substitutions
1. For para 2:

Since the publication of his book entitled Les Propheties, which has rarely been out of print since his death and has always been hugely popular across the world, Nostradamus has attracted an almost cult following. His many enthusiasts, to say nothing of the popular press, credit him with predicting numerous major world events. In contrast, most of the academic sources listed below maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus' quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power. Moreover, none of the sources listed offers any evidence that anyone has ever succeeded in interpreting any of Nostradamus' quatrains specifically enough to allow a clear identification of any event in advance.

2. For last section under 'Works':

Since his death only the Prophecies have continued to be popular, but in this case they have been quite extraordinarily so. Over 200 editions of them have appeared in that time, together with over 2000 commentaries. Their popularity seems to be partly due to the fact that their vagueness and lack of dating make it easy to quote them selectively after every major dramatic event and retrospectively claim them as "hits" (see Nostradamus in popular culture."

Can we agree on these? I so, I will incorporate them into the article. --PL 09:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Value of Nostradamus' estate
What is the current-day value of N's estate of 3444 crowns? Someone edited the earlier estimate of $300K (US) to $1 million (US). Given the vagaries of price comparisons, should we even include a direct equivalent?

"Crown" may refer to an écu couronné comprising 60 sols, like the Louis XIII écu. If that's so, and the estimate here of 1 sol:$50 is valid, then the estate was worth slightly over 10 million dollars. Not bad for a best-selling author, but not a figure I would trust. Does anyone have a better-documented estimate?--Chris 19:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The conversion rate that I have assumed in my books on the subject is 3 pounds to the crown, and roughly 20 modern pounds to the contemporary pound. Consequently my estimate of his worth at death is some $300,000, minus some debts. --PL 09:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Still, an estate of $US300,000 in those days would place you much higher in society than the same amount today. I wonder how that could be expressed in this article.--Chris 13:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, actually no. What his estate was worth to him then was worth exactly what its converted value is to us now (assuming that I have the coversion rates right). That's what 'conversion' means! I suspect that he kept his wealth secret, though. His place in society was almost entirely a function of his relationship with the Queen and the various Bishops, Archbishops and other nobility with whom he associated and for whom he worked. --PL 15:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

new opening section
Are the two examples (the Jewish homeland and the Civil war) now cited in the opening section supposedly predictions made in advance by interpreting Nostradamus' quatrains, or merely predictions from completely different sources. I have briefly checked the links but can find no mention of N. If they are not predictions based on the writing of N then surely they have no place here.Davkal 20:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm! Haven't seen those! --PL 09:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Editor PL and article ownership issues
Why is editor "PL" (who obviously is Peter Lemesurier) engaging in blanket reversions of legitimate edits without comment or rationale? Twice I renamed the (very) poorly named heading "The role of interpretation" to 'Skeptical views of Nostradamus' prophecies' which describes its section far more lucidly and succinctly than the previous heading. Both times PL simply reverted without comment. Despite your status as a publisher of books on the subject of Nostradamus you would do well to disabuse yourself of the notion that you seem to hold that since you may have written a portion of an article you 'own' it. --Deglr6328 05:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * When was your proposed change properly discussed here? --PL 09:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * PL, there's no general requirement in WP that changes be discussed in advance. Given the situation in this article it may make sense, at this point, to discuss changes more regularly. But you can't simply revert good-faith edits (see Rule 10).


 * But then see Rule 3)!


 * Deglr6328, PL may want to rule the article with an iron fist, but in reality he's just a normal Wikipedian like you and me. He knows a lot about N., so he's worth paying attention to, and obviously diplomacy and tact are called for in any situation of heated disagreement, but the bottom line is that you have every right to make good-faith edits here.--Chris 14:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. But these are so many at present (many of them contradictory) that the article is simply descending into chaos. What I would like to help provide is a viable platform on the basis of which such good-faith edits stand some chance of surviving. Hopefully such a platform will be 'up' tomorrow, incorporating the latest changes agreed here. Until then, editing bad copy (however well-intentioned) is merely like re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. --PL 16:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from blanket reverts of recent changes
PL, your proposal to blanket-revert over 100 recent edits by dozens of editors, the vast majority well-meaning contributions, is not acceptable and is disrespectful of these other Wikipedians. If you do this again, it will have to go to mediation.

There is no reason why we cannot work together on this article. As I've argued before (and I think my view represents the consensus of commentators), this generally good article is marred by a florid and opinionated style that is far from the NPOV ideal. (This is not to say that such a style doesn't have its place - where would we be without Thomas Carlyle?) As such, the article required, and still requires to some degree, a fairly extensive but superficial stylistic edit. This is apart from some minor problems with sourcing and organization of the sort that are found in many good articles.

I would be happy to work with you, Jim62sch, Deglr6328, and other contributors to further improve this article. To help cool things down, I won't object if you want to roll back to Kinneyboy90's edit of 08:47, 1 June 2006 - that's the one immediately preceding your first blanket revert. Let's try to work consensually from this point onwards, recognizing, of course, that neither you nor anyone will necessarily approve each and every edit.--Chris 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm off camping for a couple of days. I hope you guys all play nice over the weekend, and that nobody goes crazy on the reverts. I hope to do more work with all of you next week.--Chris 16:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, since you insist, I have edited the existing article rather than reverting it. As expected, there was a lot to do! In the process I have incorporated the most recent changes suggested above and added the two major bibliographies to the Source List. Hopefully there is now a sounder basis for well-meaning tweaking and copy-editing! --PL 17:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

sources redux
Do not change the name of this section. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 21:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

On of the things that concerns me about this article on a general level is the amount of references to the work of Peter Lemesurier - the discredited "pyramidiot" who claims amonst other things, as far as I understand his ludicrous ramblings, that the Great Pyramid at Giza has prophecies built into its architechture including the prediction that human beings will no longer have need of their mortal bodies sometime in the late fourth-millenium AD. I think any article making reference to the work of such an author should make mention of the fact that he is widely regarded as a crank among the academic/scientific community. Here, for example, is a review of one of his books as promoted on his own website. GODS OF THE DAWN 'The message of the.pyramids and the true Stargate mystery'. Basing itself on Lemesurier (1. above), Bauval, Hancock et al., this proposes that the Egyptian pyramids are in fact star-markers summoning us to an eventual encounter with some vastly superior intelligence in the region of Orion, rather along the lines of the monolith in '2001'

Hmmn, yes! Perhaps his animosity to N's prophecies is because they don't agree with his own. N's supposed successes being merely the result of after-the-fact chicanery performed on vague and nebulous quatrains, whereas Lemesurier's predictions are based on crystal-clear, no interpretation needed, stone blocks. As Groucho Marks said to the author "when I picked up your book I didn't stop laughing until I put it down - I aim to read it someday". Davkal 12:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, regarded as a crank, yes, perhaps – as was Nostradamus in his day, of course (and worse!). As I recall, the illustrious astronomer and cosmologist Fred Hoyle wrote some pretty speculative stuff, too, in his spare time, and was similarly regarded as a bit of crank by some, even in his professional work. Perhaps the best time to judge Lemesurier's admitted speculations (which don't, so far as I know, say anything about 'humans no longer having need of their mortal bodies' – but then who cares about actual facts around here?) will be after the time for their fulfilment? And possibly his subsequent speculations should be considered quite separately from his statements of the facts of the Great Pyramid's geometry, which (so far as I know) nobody has questioned. One of the principal mainstream archaeologists at Giza, similarly, is nowadays Mark Lehner, who was originally sent there by the ARE of Virginia Beach precisely in order to 'prove' all kinds of maverick theories about the alleged Atlantean involvement there – until he changed his mind, that is – but I haven't noticed that the fact (which he freely admits) has lowered his current standing among the archaeological community.


 * And I will, of course, say nothing about Isaac Newton, who was certainly a crank and wrote much more extensively on alchemy and occultism than ever he did on 'proper' science – and, for that matter, never did change his mind...


 * In the case of Lemesurier's books on Nostradamus, similarly, fairly disgraceful ad hominem remarks such as the above are possibly none too helpful in judging the value of his reports of the facts in this quite separate field, which seem to be well respected by most of the specialist academic community – to the point where he is regularly invited by the highly respectable Maison de Nostradamus at Salon to lecture in French on the subject at their expense, for example. Unlike Davkal (who clearly hasn't read him, so is not in the best position to judge his work anyway), they seem to think that his approach to Nostradamus is pretty factual and (being much less clever than Davkal) haven't realised how much animosity towards Nostradamus's prophecies he actually harbours, despite the fact they they in no way conflict! In fact, they seem to have the extraordinary impression that, at about the same time as he was writing Gods of the Dawn, Lemesurier was actually writing books marginally in favour of Nostradamus! But then, of course, if people were entitled to change their minds in the light of the actual evidence, who knows where that might get us? (!!) The end of civilisation as we know it, presumably! [Perhaps Davkal should be more concerned about people who don't change their minds in the light of the evidence?!]


 * Re Lemesurier's position among the sources (many of whom he knows personally), his books published in 2003 are of course the most recent reputable works in English on the subject, and the only ones (apart from Gruber's) that take in all the fundamental French research up to that year. His Nostradamus Encyclopedia of 1997, similarly, is widely regarded as the definitive English reference work on the subject, even though, in the light of later research, it can now be seen to be somewhat inaccurate in parts. Please see the articles on my User Page, which offer (a) some suggested underlying principles and (b) a selection of reviews. --PL 16:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait until after the supposed "eventual encounter with some vastly superior intelligence in the region of Orion" has taken place (maybe you could shed some light on how long I'll need to wait) and then write Mr Lemesurier a letter of apology shall I.

Also, were you there when Lemesurier delivered his lecture in French (in French mind you) at the House of Nostradamus hairdressing salon on the prophetic significance of late 20th century hairstyles. I ask because I have heard it argued that the resurgence in popularity of the mullet has been decoded and points to a possible meeting with unknown ocean intelligences in 4178 AD - rather along the lines of the film The Abyss. Davkal 16:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Davkal, you've certainly taken the time to prove yourself quite the pompous ass, haven't you? It's not everyday that I am lucky enough to see someone trot out his or her intense ignorance and put it on public display, but then perhaps you enjoy playing the par of the village idiot.
 * In any case, given that you’ve read none of Lemesurier's works, it seems to me rather ridiculous for you to comment upon any of them. Relying on book reviews (and those from only one source to boot Davkal 00:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC) the author's own review on the author's own website - - not in French though Davkal 00:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)) to decide whether a book is worth reading is something that only the biggest of fools would do: surely, you must know that a book review tells far more about the reader than it does about the author or the book.
 * Additionally, you've shown yourself to be utterly obtuse in reibus Nostradamus and the institutions that have grown around his legacy. The Maison de Nostradamus at Salon (which is, for people who probably cannot find France on the map, the French town in which Nostradamus made his home) is a well-known organisation dedicated to the study of Nostradamus.  The fact that they would have Peter give lectures there is significant in that his views tend to be far less hagiographic than those of the Maison.
 * In any case, I know Peter quite well, counting him a good friend, -- no we did not meet via anything related to Nostradamus (we both have many other interests) -- and I am rather offended by your character assassination of him Davkal 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)I only pointed out he wrote a bookDavkal 00:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC). You know nothing of the man or his bona fides.  Hell, you know nothing of much of anything so far as I can tell, including the importance of lecturing in French to the Maison: the Frogs Davkal 00:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)are you for realDavkal 00:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC) are, you see, rather snobbish, and for them to consider one's French to be "good enough" is actually a compliment.  In addition, Peter is one of a handful of people who are fluent in Middle French, a requirement for anyone wishing to discuss Nostradamus at the level at which Peter does.  (A correlative example would be writing about the Canterbury Tales while being utterly incapable of reading Middle English.) Also required is a complete knowledge Davkal 00:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC) "complete knowledge" - I ask you in a quite tone of voiceDavkal 00:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC) of European history, another field at which Peter excels.
 * Bottom line is that your criticisms of Peter are an excercise in vacuity. Had you read his books, then I'd say nary a word as we are all entitled to our opinions. But as you've read none of them, your comments are merely effluvium slushing through sewers.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have shown myself to be a pompous ass haven't I - the kind who would lapse in etymological arguments at the drop of a hat rather than just accept that I had made a mistake. I feel so chided - it's almost as if the super intelligence from (somewhere in the vicinity of) Orion had come down (up?) to Earth to tell me off in person. And, just in case you're listening Magnus Orion Magnusson, 1) caveats such as "it is claimed" or "X has shown that" should be placed before statements of opinion, however authoritative the (lack of) sources are - or irrespective of how many of your own books you're trying to sell (I knew all the time); new research means roughly (ie. exactly) new research, and mundane doesn't mean so complicated that someone might mistake it for magic. So, off you go back to Orion's Trousers and don't come back until your English is as good as your moyen francais (as I believe it is rather than, as you would have it, francais moyen). Good night, God Bless, and buy British! Vive le Cheetham Erica! Davkal 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What's a "quite tone of voice"? (Davkal 00:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC) "complete knowledge" - I ask you in a quite tone of voiceDavkal 00:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)). And i.e. has a period after each letter, it is not "ie." -- hey, you want to bust on someone's English (although I'm not sure on whose) you damned well better make sure yours is flawless.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Quite" erm, well, oh yes: in the original Greek it was quite common to move an "e" from the middle of the word to after what would normally be the last letter - so any Greek scholar would easily have seen that the word was supposed to be "quiet". There is a fundamental difference between a typo (your jottings above are full of them, and I have never stooped so low as to condemn you for that) and a simple failure to understand the meaning of words. And, was I really bustin' dude? Davkal 09:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you were bustin', but it was really unclear what or whom exactly you were bustin' on (oops, end of sentence preposition, surely "this is something up with which we shall not put" ;). As for typos, yep, I make a lot of them, never claimed to be a typist. So, what word(s) did you think I failed to understand?  (Or did you mean something else?)  As for the etymological stuff, that was relevant to the use of the word "technology", as the 17th century definition is still valid (i.e., not obsolete), and it had a bearing on the use of the Clarke quote.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I have shown above, on numerous occasions, that the Clarke quote did not fit (I presume this is why it has now been removed). The fact that you still fail to see why demonstrates everything that needs to be shown about your understanding of basic English. A quote following a paragraph should emphasise the point made in the paragraph and should not make some quite different point, or worse, illustrate a contradictory point. This is why Clarke's quote about unimaginably complex technology appearing magical is so ludicrous when chosen to emphasise the point that the mundane methods used by N are not accepted by a modern audience because of a craving for magic. In addition, you (and PL) have been abusive to virtually everyone who has attempted a criticism, however slight, of the article. You have not demonstrated an even cursory level of respect for the views of others. You have engaged endlessly in disingenuous equivocation. You have peppered almost every response with ad hominem attacks. And you have demonstrated an almost total inability to construct a logically sound argument. I urge you to re-read some of the things you have written on this page and then make the appropriate apologies to all those you have needlessly tried to offend - irrespective of whether they actually took offence. Davkal 11:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel better now? There has been little reason to put forth any logical counter-argument, as the initial arguments have not, in themselves, been logical.  In fact, your argument re the Clarke quote is an example: you say that in today's society Nostradamus' methods are not magical (and I am inclined to agree) -- yet, if you transport yourself back to the time of Nostradamus, and then apply the quote, you'll find that in his time, and for many years after, his mundane methods were magical.
 * I'll ignore your premise regarding basic English as I haven't the time to discuss the intricate layers of language.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ...'and there is no health in us.' ;)
 * But, Davkal, I insist! In the course of your own quite astonishingly sound argument, you have raised serious and perfectly legitimate questions about the validity of treating Lemesurier's Nostradamus books as sources, and have quoted a review of one of his other books. So I think we should now discuss the point in detail. For a start, clearly, it is now incumbent on you actually to read them and report back to us on just how cranky they actually are. At the same time you'd better read Brind'Amour and Gruber, as well, so that you can tell us whether there is any major disagreement between them. That's only logical, after all.


 * While we're waiting for that, however, we'd better take a look at all the available independent reviews of them, hadn't we, given that you've started the 'review' ball rolling, in case they shed any interim light on the question? I mean, we can't have people either buying or treating as authoritative his or any other source-books if they are rubbish, can we? I propose, therefore, to post all those that I can find (both pro and contra) in the appropriate subsections below. Perhaps you'd kindly tell us which of them suggest that they are in any way cranky?... --PL 09:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, would anybody like me to post here reviews of the other source books from my User Page as well, while we're at it? I mean, we can't stop there having once opened the can, can we?... --PL 15:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Published reviews of Lemesurier's The Unknown Nostradamus (mainly from Amazon)
Lemesurier writes in a fluent style and manages to include a great many hard facts about the latest issues discussed among scholars in the field without burdening his book with scientific jargon. No doubt this is a fine piece of work, putting together a great number of sources used by the prophet and original works by Nostradamus so far not published in English. Dr Elmar Gruber (leading German Nostradamus expert, and one of the article's other academic sources)

I purchased this biography for an assignment I have to do. As a high school student this book was hard for me to understand. The author of this book is a famous nostradamus critic that knows and did a lot of research and its shown in the book. I would give this book 4 stars if it was a bit more exciting. A young Amazon reader

Here is, finally, a biography of Michel de Nostredame that is based on objective research. The amount of information presented in this biography, and its accompanying appendices (which include translations of Nostradamus' lesser-known writings), clearly indicates that Lemesurier has conducted a considerable amount of research in order to produce this fascinating and very different book on Michel de Nostradame. A history of the man himself is presented along with supporting correspondences and publications from Nostradamus' lifetime, a few of which would come as quite a shock to modern American "fans" of Nostradamus. I would recommend this book to anyone who has a either serious in, or a mere curiousity about, the man Michel de Nostredame - AKA Nostradamus. Another Amazon reader

Published in honor of the 500th anniversary of his birth, The Unknown Nostradamus by linguist, translator, educator, and Nostradamus expert Peter Lemesurier is a comprehensive and up-to-date biography of Nostradamus, the medieval prophet whose predictions are still closely studied today. Extensively researched, filled with translations of contemporary critiques of Nostradamus' work, offering full translations of surviving documents, and much, much more, The Unknown Nostradamus is a "must-read" for anyone seeking to learn more about this remarkable figure and his metaphysical and encoded prophetic visions. Midwest Book Review

Readers seeking a balanced look at the controversial astrologer will do well to start here. Publishers Weekly

Highly recommended biography. Stern magazine (Germany), 4th December 2003 (bibliographical comment, translated)

Here is a book that tells you the truth and nothing but the truth about Nostradamus! East and West

Valuable insights into the medieval world as well as the seer’s life and work. This book would be of interest to both devotees and debunkers of Nostradamus. The Beacon

This book has the power to overturn the preconceptions and myths about Nostradamus and launch those who are serious about the subject into an entirely new direction of thought. Indeed, once again, Peter Lemesurier leaves authors such as John Hogue, Erika Cheetham etc, wanting in this field of study, by demonstrating his scholarly authority and providing students of Nostradamus with the most up to date research on his life and works. Gary Somai (UK)

If anyone in the world could discover the 'truth' about the seer it would be Peter Lemesurier. Mario Gregorio (archivist, international Nostradamus Research Goup, and owner of the main facsimile site listed under 'External Links')

Published reviews of Lemesurier's Nostradamus: The Illustrated Prophecies
A. Specialist and peer reviews:

...a major breakthrough in Nostradamus research... notably successful in translating "Les Propheties" into readable English and in giving to the quatrains a more true meaning instead of the rough translations that we knew until now. One of the most impressive achievements is the explanation of Nostradamus's sources... a truly magnificent result. Mario Gregorio, archivist of the international Nostradamus Research Group and owner of the main facsimile site listed under 'External links'

Lemesurier's book is a significant effort to reveal the written sources underlying the prophecies of Nostradamus. He especially manages to show convincingly how Nostradamus drew on contemporary publications for implicit references in his abundant use of omens. In this way Lemesurier reveals where Nostradamus really took his "inspiration" for many of his prophetic verses. This book represents one more substantial step in the critical evaluation of the work of the famous Renaissance prophet. Dr Elmar R. Gruber, leading German Nostradamus expert and one of the article's other academic sources

Peter Lemesurier is well known in the uneasy world of Nostradamians as a conscientious and accurate researcher. Probably his strongest point is that he investigates the Prophecies of Nostradamus in the context of the time when they were composed. His translation of the quatrains is based on an impartial analysis of 16-century-related materials and strict observance of the available historical sources. Alexey Penzensky, prominent Russian Nostradamus scholar, and editor of books on Nostradamus

An excellent edition of Nostradamus's Prophecies based on the original editions (Lyon: 1555, 1557 and 1568) with their translations, and especially its research into the textual and iconographic sources (including the famous Mirabilis Liber). This new opus of Peter Lemesurier will be just as helpful to the researcher as it will intrigue the newcomer and interest him in the universe of the Provençal prophet. Dr Patrice Guinard, Director, Centre Universitaire de Recherche en Astrologie (CURA), of whose site (listed under 'External links') he is the owner

B. Media review

A revelation. I am amazed by the translations’ objectivity and Lemesurier’s refusal to interpret the prophecies beyond what the text itself suggests. The handsomely produced book is a supremely important volume to stock in your store. New Age Retailer

Published reviews of Lemesurier's Nostradamus Encyclopedia (1997)
Fantastic look into the life of the most famous prophet of all time. From his Family Tree to his will, his preminitions and the translations. Not sure what happened to some of them though. dkzopstaker (Amazon UK)

This book has everything anyone wants to know about Nostrodamus.Its starts off with a comprehensive biography.Detailed maps,Family tree,Portraits and more.What makes this book better than others on him is that his ideas are being challenged instead of completley going aloung with him.All quartens are translated and explained.Very comprehensive look at his early life and also on people he knew.Definatley recomended. Michaelhogan20 (Ireland) The modern languages expert Peter Lemesurier is widely regarded as Britain's leading authority on Nostradamus. His Nostradamus Encyclopedia, published in 1997, represents itself as the 'definitive reference guide to the work and world of Nostradamus'. Ian Wilson, another of the academic sources listed

Le sous-titre est un peu ambitieux et le texte retenu pour les quatrains de Nostradamus n'est pas toujours convaincant, mais l'ouvrage est superbement illustré et propose une très utile concordance des Prophéties. Prof Bernard Chevignard, Department of Language and Communication, University of Burgundy, Dijon, and another of the article's academic sources, in Presages de Nostradamus, 1999, p.470)

--PL 09:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you may have demonstrated that Lemesurier is less of a crank re N that he seems to be re his other works (I would not, however, put too much faith in Amazon books reviews as it is common knowledge that may of these are written by the authors themeselves). Two further things concern me though: firstly, some of the reviews here seem to be from others who are cited in the sources; and secondly, there are a few obvious others who are not cited in the sources - e.g, Erica Cheetham and John Hogue (both of whom have some excellent reviews on Amazon and are two of the most popular authors of books about N). In tandem, these concerns suggest the following point: the article itself is fundamentally biased. It is an article based primarily on the work of one author (and possibly, I don't know, a small clique of N friends) and is solely designed to represent their view of N rather than to provide a balanced account of N, his work, and any current debate concerning N. At virtually every stage, then, where the article moves away from undisputed territory (e.g N's date of birth), I believe it is clearly in breach of the Wikipedia rules governing NPOV. That is, where debates exist - even if one view is considered dominant or popular or more scientific/academic - debate should be presented as debate. As things stand this simply cannot be said about the article. Also, please note that it is no answer to this concern to merely point out that all an article can do is reflect the "academic" sources it is drawn from, since my point is that these sources have been cherry-picked to agree with the primary source: Peter Lemesurier. I further think that this article has been written with the express purpose of promoting the work of Lemesurier as the definitive commentator on N. As such I think it should be removed pending an investigation of the motives of the author(s).Davkal 16:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You are of course free to suggest such an investigation. For myself, I know that the Lemesurier and Brindamour sources pre-existed my or PL's involvement, and that much of the article is essentially unchanged.  In addition, had I thought the purpose of this article was to promote any specific author, I'd not have gotten involved.  However, I did not and still do not think that is the case.
 * As for Cheetham, she is a fraud -- the significant liberties she has taken with the original quatrains is inexcusable. Regarding Hogue, a look at his website says all that needs to be said regarding his credentials Hogue.  They remind me of the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the Nostradamus crowd.  Of course, their ramblings could be included and the article reworked into a point-counterpoint style, but really, such an examination of competing views belongs more in the Nostradamus in popular culture article than it does in this one.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You say Cheetham is a fraud, I say you and PL are frauds. I say Lemesurier is a fraud. I say all the sources cited in the article are part of a small mutual back-slapping clique that is in no way representative of the academic views on N currently available. And, when you say you would have "not have gotten involved", I simply don't believe you. You are one out of the two people (along with PL) that I am accusing of hijacking this article for either prestige or material gain. Davkal 00:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * ROFLMAO. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Material gain! I knew it.  Hey, Jim, will you please share your secret for making money off FAs?  I've got one, and I could sure use the money.  Guettarda 22:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Guetturda; what you do is this: you write an article citing yourself as the only reliable English language author on a popular topic and fail to mention any other authors whether popular or not. You then provide a link to your website (and nobody else's) where your books are available for sale. In other words you use Wikipedia as a form of advertising without having to pay for it. Davkal 22:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Guettarda was being TIC. @@ As for this, "You then provide a link to your website (and nobody else's)", who, pray-tell, did that? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Jim, if you see below, you will see that in essence most of the claims here have been corroborated by PL (i.e., the claims minus the inflammatory language). For example, several scholars who disagree with Lemesurier et al (described by PL as a "few mavericks") have not had their views represented nor are they cited in the sources. This is in clear contradiction of Wikipedia rules governing NPOV. In addition, PL has stated explicitly, also contrary to Wikipedia rules, that sources who are not considered academic enough (by PL) have likewise been excluded. What this means is the article is written from one point of view (not even the sole academic view) and in cases where a contrary view is raised it is raised merely to be discarded in the same sentence. I have, however, temporarily removed the POV flag placed on this article today since PL has agreed to rewrite part of the article in order to take account of these complaints. A,LYAOAAIFOWYLACRAKYFHI Davkal 22:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and as PL noted, they belong in the Nostradamus in popular culture article. Oh sure, Cheetham and Hogue could be treated here in the same way the arguments of Behe and Dembski are in the Intelligent design article, but I wonder if you would find that acceptable.  Additionally, I think PL was being kind in referring to Cheetham and Hogue as mavericks -- I'd lean toward crackpots.  Care to explain the letter string at the end of your post?  If you've got something to say, say it.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear me! First you attack the information. Then you attack the sources. Then you attack the people who wrote the sources. What on earth is up with you, Davkal? You know perfectly well that you haven't even read the sources.


 * Furthermore, you virtually accuse Lemesurier of having written the reviews himself. You complain that some of them are, in effect, peer-reviews (which, I have to say, is one of the strangest complaints that I have come across!). Without even having studied the serious academic literature, you seriously propose Cheetham and Hogue as 'respectable' sources (!!), when even Hogue describes himself as a 'rogue scholar'. You suggest that there is debate in the academic community about the sources suggested and about whether Cheetham's and Hogue's lurid, ill-informed and deliberately populist efforts should be regarded as worth considering (there isn't, as you can see for yourself by visiting the academic forums listed under 'External Links', from which you might even learn what the current stage of the world debate currently is, and what sources people 'in the know' actually do regard as being basic to the argument!). And finally you put the cherry on the cake by suggesting that I am a fraud (as is Jim) – no doubt in full accordance with your complaint about 'people who pepper almost every response with ad hominem attacks'!

My point about frauds is that it is easy to say such things. (You say Cheetham is a fraud, I say you are frauds.) My main point though is that I simply do not believe either of you are acting in good faith re this article. As I have said, I do not believe that the sources you cite are necessarily independent of each other or necessarily reprsentative of the wider academic view of N. Instead I believe them to have been cherry-picked to support the views of Lemesurier. (The number of times the argument that "we can only go by what is in the sources" has been used is what leads me to this belief.) I have never claimed to be a Nostradamus scholar, but neither do I need to be an scholar of evolution to smell a rat if all the sources cited are, or seem to be, creationist. I think the article should be referred, if such a thing is possible, to allow an appraisal of the sources. One reason being that even if Hogue or Cheetham's books are not used to provide any quotes etc., they should be mentioned in the article listed in the sources as two of the most widely-read commentators on N. As things stand, they merely appear not to exist and this I know to be false. Davkal 12:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I will give one further example of why I think this article fails Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia rules state that all viewpoints (except extreme minority viewpoints) should be presented. This does not mean that they should all be given the same weight or that they should all be considered equally valid. Now, from the little I do know about N, I know that a significant view is that N's writings need to be "decoded" insome way and that a face value translation will not reveal what he was trying to say. This view is represented nowhere in the article. All this is mentioned is that would be code-breakers are prone to error - that this point is made seems to suggest that I am right in my assumption that such a view exists. But, who are these would be code-breakers, what is the code they think is there, how have they endeavoured to break the code, what evidence, if any, do they offer for there being a code. Nothing! Therefore the article does not present their view and is accordingly in breach of the rules. Davkal 12:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, Davkal, I would never have thought you capable of such a level of apparently wilful ignorance, abuse, self-contradiction and, frankly, seeming paranoia. However, since you seem to be seriously proposing Cheetham and Hogue as sources (notwithstanding the fact that both have long since been dismissed by the the recognised scholars in the field), here are reviews of both:

Brief review of books by Erika Cheetham
Cheetham's The Prophecies of Nostradamus (Corgi, 1973) – partly based, reportedly much to his annoyance, on Leoni – was something of a pioneering venture, in that it made available to the general public for the first time for centuries a fairly reliable reprint of the 1568 edition of Nostradamus's Propheties (minus its Preface and its dedicatory Letter to Henri II). Apart from that, though, it was stuffed from cover to cover with historical, etymological and linguistic errors, as well as being rather credulous about the seer. Much the same applied to her later The Final Prophecies of Nostradamus (Futura, 1989), which was basically just a re-hash of the earlier work, though with even more errors. Her The Further Prophecies of Nostradamus (Corgi, 1985) filled in some of the gaps left by the other two.

As Randi not unreasonably puts it in his The Mask of Nostradamus (Prometheus, 1993, pp.143-4), 'Some "authorities", such as Erika Cheetham, are not discussed here because their work is not thoroughly enough researched... Her books on Nostradamus are among the most widely available and read today, but she cannot be taken seriously. Any critical treatment of her work would take an entire volume just to correct errors.'

For obvious reasons, then, her books do not qualify for the Nostradamus Source-list, especially as the original 1568 text is now available directly online via the article's External Links.


 * As you can see, then, Davkal, even Randi (of all people!) considers Cheetham beneath him. So you can imagine what the views of the serious scholars are!

Reprinted review of John Hogue's Nostradamus: A Life and Myth
Book Review: John Hogue's 'Nostradamus: A Life and Myth' (444 pages: Element, 2003): ISBN 0-00-714051-7

John Hogue's new biography of Nostradamus is better than I expected - but not much. As a literary biography, it is much more literary than it is a biography. The 16th century French seer's cultural and historical background is indeed extensively and lovingly described, but the rest of the book seems merely to consist of huge clouds of elaborate, typically Hoguean speculations about Nostradamus - 'he may have', 'he could have', 'perhaps', 'we can imagine that', 'it is possible that' - interspersed with only relatively brief factual extracts from the seer's known life-story. One would almost think that very little is known about it.

Hogue (a self-confessed 'rogue scholar' - p. 124) starts his book by rubbishing the purely factual approach. It is a wise precaution. For, despite his frequent professions of scepticism, various of the usual hoary myths and Old Wives' Tales - the famous stories of the Wrong Pig, the Surprised Future Pope, the Lost Dog - are duly trotted out, as are the fake Prophecies of Orval. Hogue doesn't actually insist that they are all true. In fact he describes them as 'apocryphal'. But we are still left with the distinct impression that we really ought to take such undocumented later inventions seriously, or at least to consider them as possibilities. Otherwise why mention them in the first place? As a result, the newcomer to the subject is left not really knowing what to take as fact and what as fiction.

And then there are his translations. Several of Hogue's most recent original translations of Nostradamus's prose in particular just don't correspond to any edition of the French originals that I have ever seen. Whole chunks are omitted without acknowledgement, whole sentences at best paraphrased and at worst misparaphrased. As for his translations of the prophetic verses, most of these are in my view frankly grotesque, and some are not even in comprehensible English.

Which leaves, I'm afraid, all the other fallacies and factual errors in the book. Here are just a few of the more obvious ones:


 * Nostradamus's secretary Chavigny (who wasn't mayor of Beaune - even though I, too, have made that error in the past) didn't start work in 1554 (pp. xv, 162, 165): contemporary documents make it perfectly clear that he didn't arrive until 1561.


 * No contemporary evidence, least of all in his own writings, suggests that Nostradamus ever supported the ideas of Copernicus (p.27). In fact his astrology is entirely pre-Copernican.


 * There is no evidence whatever that his known expulsion from the Medical Faculty at Montpellier for having been an apothecary occurred before his enrolment for courses: in fact, the entry is undated (p.57).


 * Nostredame (as he then was) cannot have been lectured in anatomy by 'Dr.' Guillaume Rondelet (p.58), because the latter, a mere fellow-student of his, enrolled in the self-same year (1529) and didn't gain his doctorate until 1537, long after Nostredame had left.


 * He didn't Latinise his name from 'Nostredame' to 'Nostradamus' (p.63) at the time of his lavishly-described doctorate ceremony (of which absolutely no record in fact exists): it occurs for the first known time on his Almanac of 1550.


 * There is no contemporary record that he was ever a member of the Montpellier medical faculty (pp. 64, 67).


 * It is surely stretching it a bit to call Nostradamus's quoted prescription of no food at all for plague-sufferers, or even of chicken soup initially for convalescents, a diet 'sparing in fatty meats' (pp. 97, 370)!


 * Hogue praises Nostredame for 'healing so many people' during the plague-outbreak at Aix (p.106), despite quoting the Frenchman's own words to the effect that none of his cures worked 'any more than nothing at all' (p.101). In the same passage, Nostredame points out that bleeding was indeed tried, despite Hogue's resistance to the idea. And he certainly didn't say that his rose-pills worked 'for a month' - merely that they preserved 'un monde' (a whole lot of people): how much French does Hogue actually know, I wonder?


 * Nobody in 1559 read verse I.35 as forecasting the death of King Henri II (p.181), and neither Nostradamus nor his adoring secretary Chavigny ever suggested as much, as they would certainly have done were it true: the first printed suggestion to that effect would not come until 1614, all of 55 years later.

I could go on... 'Aurens' for Aurons, 'De Tornay' for De Tournes, 'Catherine de' Medici' for Catherine de Médicis, 'chateau Blois' for Château de Blois, even 'Salon en Provence' for Salon-de-Provence -- but what would be the point? However, just to add one final point, since Hogue makes so much of it, even while seeming to question it...


 * Nostradamus didn't, of course, predict the events of 9/11/2001, whatever special meanings (and special geography!) Hogue (or other Americans) may care after the event to read (or to deny really reading) into two verses that are merely fairly obvious back-references to (a) the invasion by the Normans (who are actually named!) of southern Italy and Sicily in the 11th century and (b) the Inquisition's known 'unofficial' methods of disposing of unwanted 'heretics' at the time, in this case in the south-west of France - in both casees projected into the future as 'prophecies'.

To Hogue, certainly, Nostradamus was an occult Master, a powerful mage with gifts of theurgy and foresight that are scarcely imaginable. The image has a long, if dubious, pedigree. I have no doubt that he honestly believes in it. But so anxious is he to reinforce this impression, that he ignores, or is unaware of, a great deal of recent research that suggests precisely the contrary, namely that the seer's real 'inspiration' lay almost exclusively in written documents - pre-existing collections of prophecies, published historical works, printed reports of 'omens' old and new... As Arthur C Clarke puts it: 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic' – or any technology, one feels tempted to add, that is sufficiently unknown to the beholder.

Hogue concludes his doorstop of a book not only with an index and bibliography, but with 34 pages of useful (but not entirely reliable) chronological tables, and no less than 64 pages of liberally-spaced footnotes, infuriatingly arranged by difficult-to-identify chapters.

That said, it has to be admitted that Hogue's latest elephantine literary masterpiece is at least entertaining and engaging to read. For obvious reasons it is not, however, suitable for the article's source-list.


 * So, Davkal, do you still seriously want to suggest that such works rank alongside the reputable academic works? Davkal 13:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC) No, they don't need to rank alongside anything - they merely need to exist, Wikipedia rules say they should be included Davkal 13:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC) Ah, silly me! I had forgotten that you haven't even read the reputable academic works, and so have no standard by which to judge them! By all means propose them for the article Nostradamus in popular culture, though, since that, if anywhere, is where any consideration of them belongs.


 * If you wish to see details of the various other books that might be considered, but for obvious reasons aren't, please visit my User Page.


 * Come to that, you could email the Maison de Nostradamus at Salon-de-Provence on m.nostradamus@salon-de-provence.org, and try out (a) the current sources list and (b) each of your proposed alternatives, and see what sort of a reaction you get! Alternatively you could ring the Director, Jacqueline Allemand, on 033 4 90 56 64 31, provided your French is good enough. Or is she supposed to be in on the plot, too?


 * Watch out, the bogeymen are coming! ;) --PL 10:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

With virtually ever sentence you convict yourself of breaching Wikipedia rules. The point I make is merely that these books exist and form part of the overall debate surrounding the works of N. As such Wikipedie rules state explicitly that they should be mentioned and discussed fairly. Since you admit that you have excluded them deliberately, you prove my point that the sources for the article have been cherry-picked, and that you have no intention of writing an article in line with Wikipedia rules but are writing, instead, an account of N solely from one perspective. The perspective of Lemesurier who may, or may not, be representative of the current academic view of N. Davkal 13:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The present account is broadly representative of current academic views, as you can easily check for yourself (but apparently won't). If the other books exist, and you now think the article should contain a section reflecting their views (which is not unreasonable, but would lengthen the article horribly), then I suggest you write one – which presumably means, first, finding out what those views are, second, how they differ from the mainstream academic views, and third, what the qualified academics make of them. But you are, of course, in no position to attempt this.


 * Personally, I think such a section would more properly belong under Nostradamus in popular culture, since there is room for it there and it certainly doesn't belong under 'academic' culture – but, if you insist, I would be prepared to attempt such a section for inclusion in that article. Up to you whether you then transfer it to the main article: this should be unnecessary, though, given that the latter already links to Nostradamus in popular culture – indeed, that's what it's for. I'm not prepared to do it, though, all the while the NPOV tag remains and the Featured tag deleted, both of which are quite unnecessarily dramatic gestures, and are hardly designed to promote amicable co-operation. --PL 15:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not able to write such a section because my knowledge of the subject is too scant (please note I have never claimed anything else). That such a section is needed in the main article, though, follows from the Wikipedia rules stated below. In this particular, and peculiar, case it would even seem that the academic view is the minority view (the statement -not currently in the article- about what millions of people believe lends support to this). And this, I think, will make amending the article very difficult re balancing the overwhelming view (presumably wrong) with the academic view (presumably correct). Perhaps articles on, for example, Travis Walton (known primarily for his alledged abduction by aliens rather than for his abilities as a lumberjack), or the Loch Ness monster, may provide suitable templates for how such an article might best be attempted - I have not looked at these articles but merely suggest that they mirror the present case in some important respects. As noted, I do not have the knowledge to write such an article on N but, as you have consistently pointed out, you do. I therefore think you may be best placed to write the appropriate sections. Davkal 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, let me think about it then. But I shall probably insert it in Nostradamus in popular culture. Up to you what you care to do with it after that. It will probably need to be quite lengthy and technical, though, so don't expect it until the weather forces me inside! What heading should it have, would you think? How about Alternative views?


 * But please restore the 'Featured' tag and delete the NPOV one first, or I'm not playing ball! After all, right at this moment we don't seem (miraculously) to be in dispute! --PL 15:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

POV
I have placed the POV flag on this article since the authors admit deliberately excluding discussion of commonly known issues re the subject.

Some of the relevant sections of Wikipedia policy on POV are reproduced below:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. Davkal 13:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, in that case the present article pretty much reflects official Wikipedia policy as it stands, then! Until the last sentence it doesn't specify what the minorities or majorities are supposed to be of. But in the last sentence it becomes quite clear that it is talking about competing views among experts on the subject (the only 'concerned party' is of course Nostradamus himself!). Cheetham may have been a pioneer, but she certainly can't now be regarded as an expert on the subject: having done her original research some 30 years ago, she had never seen the original editions, nor the huge amount of archival and textual research that has been done since, while her French was, frankly, horrible (her speciality was Provençal, which is only applicable to two out of 942 verses). Hogue, similarly, is evidently unaware of most of the research (certainly he doesn't reflect it, though he does take a few ideas from Lemesurier's already-dated Nostradamus Encyclopedia of 1997, which he seems to regard approvingly as an authority) and, to judge by his recent translations, his French is shaky at best.


 * In short, the experts (apart from the odd obvious maverick) are simply not in dispute about the facts adduced in the article, though naturally there is some slight variation 'at the edges', as already reflected by the footnoting. If you can think of an expert whose views haven't been included, please let me know, but frankly, I can't think of more than one, and you won't even have heard of him (not least because all the other experts disagree with him!). Once again, please refer to the reviews on my User Page, which lists nearly all of the recent books on the subject, in case they give you ideas... And, of course, to the academic forums themselves. --PL 15:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

On this point you admit that at least one expert has a different opinion, you know who he is, and you have knowingly not included his POV in the article. So, now we have some experts (those who are in agreement) have their views represented in the article, one expert (who disagrees) is not mentioned or cited as a source at all, and the vast majority of commentators on N (who you consider non-academic) are neither cited nor discussed and are merely the subject of one or two throw away lines. I simply cannot see how that in any way reflects Wikipedia policy.Davkal 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The concerned parties are those on either side of the debate and not N, as you well know. This like saying that only the acedmic view of the Loch Ness Monster should be put forard since academy=expert and the only other concerned party is Nessie herself. Come on! Davkal 15:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Frankly I don't. In an article on Bob Bylan, he would be the concerned party. --PL 15:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The example given in the rules makes this issue perfectly clear. Those who believe the Earth to be round are the experts (and in this case the majority) and the Flat-earthers are the other concerned parties (in this case the minority). In the case of N, the academic sources can be considered the experts (although probably in the minority) and those who believe that N was a prophet and who write about such things are the other concerned parties (in this case probably the majority). Do you really believe that writing "and those who are the subject of the article" is beyond the abilities of the Wikipedia policy writers. And what could such a thing mean in most cases given that the majority of articles in Wikipedia are about things rather than people. Davkal 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, that's not the way I read it (and Wikipedia isn't always quite as 'legal' as it would like to be). But why quarrel about it? I told you I'm prepared to attempt the article: in fact I've already sketched out the first couple of sentences while the iron's hot. But don't expect me to do any more on it until the tags are restored to normal. --PL 16:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the POV flag. I think though that several points need to be noted. A considerable number of people (myself included) originally attempted to comment reasonably on this article only to have our intelligence/motives questioned at every turn. There was even the ludicrous sight of one commentator above going to great lengths to pre-empt an attack of this sort prior to stating his actual point. Several people on this page have been critical of the way you (and Jim) have responded to people. I am not sure if this drove the others away or they simply became bored. I have, unfortunately, resorted to much the same tactics that I had criticised earlier on. What these types of comments do is make the place a particularly unpleasant one and there seems to me to be no need for this. It also polrises debate to the extent that even extraordinarily simple matters become serious bones of contention. The end result, as I see it, is that every gets annoyed and the article gets no better. You may not believe this, but until I made the point about Lemesurier being a crank (I am actually a great supporter of von Daniken - not his theories particularly but his disregard for authroity and accepted wisdom) I had done nothing more than suggest a few improvements to the article, which, once I had actually written them, were almost universally regarded as improvements. Nonetheless, when I originally made these points they were treated with an amount of hostility I could not believe. And while I don't want to say "you started it" I do feel that the comments I ended up making were largely the result of an attitude prevalent onb this page prior to my involvement. Indeed, I made the points about the tone of some of the responses very early on in my involvement but these had little or no effect. I do hereby solemnly swear (or some such thing) that I will attempt to conduct myself in a reasonable manner, that I will endeavour to not use belittling language, and that I will treat any comment made by anyone as worthy of respect. I can only hope that all others will follow suit.Davkal 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I didn't think I had been particularly nasty or rude, but there you go. Now that you have rectified the tags, the ideas are starting to boil and bubble, but the new section will probably take a little time, as there's a lot of research to do in order to establish exactly who said what – and besides, the sun is out!


 * So be patient!;)

Later... OK here's a draft, rather earlier than expected. Let me know if you think I have left anything out... I would propose to insert it in Nostradamus in popular culture, while inserting the self-same heading in the main article followed by "Please refer to Nostradamus in popular culture", which would seem to be eminently appropriate. I have inserted straight text references, which I would would hope that Jim would agree to convert into pucker reference-notes. --PL 09:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Alternative views
Views differing considerably from the foregoing are to be found both in printed literature and on the internet. At one end of the spectrum, there are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn [see his contributions to the Benazra and CURA sites listed under 'External links'], suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus' Propheties are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind. Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view.

At the other end of the spectrum, there are a large number of fairly recent popular books (backed up by literally thousands of private websites) suggesting not only that the Propheties are genuine, but that Nostradamus was a true prophet. Unfortunately, thanks to the vagaries of interpretation, no two of them agree on exactly what he predicted, whether for our past or for our future [Lemesurier, P: The Nostradamus Encyclopedia, 1997]. There is a general consensus, however, that he predicted the French Revolution, Napoleon, Hitler, both World Wars, and the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is also a general consensus that he predicted whatever major event had just happened at the time of the various books' publication, from the Apollo moon landings, through the death of Diana, Princess of Wales and the Challenger disaster, to the events of 9/11: this 'movable feast' aspect appears to be characteristic of the genre [Lemesurier, Peter, The Unknown Nostradamus, 2003].

Possibly the first of these books to become truly popular in English was Henry C Roberts' The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus of 1947, reprinted at least seven times during the next 40 years, which contained both transcriptions and translations, with brief commentaries. This was followed in 1961 by Edgar Leoni's remarkably dispassionate Nostradamus and His Prophecies, which is universally regarded even today as by far the best and most comprehensive treatment and analysis of Nostradamus in English prior to 1990. After that came Erika Cheetham's well-known The Prophecies of Nostradamus, incorporating a reprint of the posthumous 1568 edition, which was reprinted, revised and republished several times from 1973 onwards, latterly as The Final Prophecies of Nostradamus. This went on to serve as the basis for Orson Welles' celebrated film/video The Man Who Saw Tomorrow. Apart from a two-part translation of Jean-Charles de Fontbrune's Nostradamus: historien et prophète of 1980, the series could be said to have culminated in John Hogue's well-known books on the seer from about 1994 onwards, including Nostradamus: The Complete Prophecies (1999) and, latterly, Nostradamus: A Life and Myth (2003).

With the exception of Roberts, these books (and their many popular imitators) were almost unanimous not merely about Nostradamus' powers of prophecy, but also about various aspects of his biography. He had been a descendant of the Israelite tribe of Issachar; he had been educated by his grandfathers, who had both been physicians to the court of Good King René of Provence; he had attended Montpellier University in 1552 to gain his first degree: after returning there in 1529 he had successfully taken his medical doctorate; he had gone on to lecture in the Medical Faculty there until his views became too unpopular; he had travelled to the north-east of France, where he had composed prophecies at the abbey of Orval; 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; he had engaged in 'scrying' using either a magic mirror or a bowl of water; he had been joined by his secretary Chavigny at Easter 1554; having published the first installment of his Propheties, he had been summoned by Queen Catherine de Médicis to Paris in 1555 to discuss with her his prophecy at quatrain I.35 that her husband King Henri II would be killed in a duel; he had examined the royal children at Blois; he had been buried standing up; and he had been found, when dug up at the French Revolution, to be wearing a medallion bearing the exact date of his disinterment.

From the 1980s onwards, however, an academic reaction set in, especially in France. The publication in 1983 of Nostradamus' private correspondence [Dupèbe, Jean, Nostradamus: Lettres inédites, 1983] and, during succeeding years, of the original editions of 1555 and 1557 by Chomarat and Benazra, together with the discovery of much original archival material [Leroy, Dr Edgar, Nostradamus, ses origines, sa vie, son oeuvre, 1972] [Brind'Amour, Pierre, Nostradamus astrophile, 1993] revealed that much that was claimed about Nostradamus simply didn't fit the documented facts. The academics [Leroy, Dr Edgar, Nostradamus, ses origines, sa vie, son oeuvre, 1972] [Brind'Amour, Pierre, Nostradamus astrophile, 1993] [Randi, James, The Mask of Nostradamus, 1993] [Lemesurier, Peter, The Nostradamus Encyclopedia, 1997] pointed out that not one of the claims just listed was backed up by any known contemporary documentary evidence. Most of them had evidently been based on unsourced rumours retailed as 'fact' by much later commentators such as Guynaud (1693) and Bareste (1840), on modern misunderstandings of the 16th-century French texts, or on pure invention. Even the suggestion that quatrain I.35 had successfully prophesied King Henri II's death did not actually appear in print for the first time until 1614, 55 years after the event [Brind'Amour, P: Nostradamus astrophile, 1993] [Lemesurier, The Unknown Nostradamus, 2003].

On top of that, the academics [Lemesurier, Peter, The Nostradamus Encyclopedia, 1997] [Randi, James, The Mask of Nostradamus, 1993] [Wilson, Ian, Nostradamus: The Evidence, 2002], who themselves tend to eschew any attempt at 'intrepretation', complained that the English translations were usually of poor quality, seemed to display little or no knowledge of 16th-century French, were tendentious and, at worst, were sometimes twisted to fit the events to which they were supposed to refer (or vice versa). None of them, certainly, were based on the original editions: Roberts had based himself on that of 1672, Cheetham and Hogue on the posthumous edition of 1568. Even the relatively respectable Leoni had had to admit on his page 115 that he had never seen an original edition, and on earlier pages had had to indicate that much of his biographical material was unsourced.

However, none of this was originally known to most of the English-language commentators, purely by function of the dates when they were writing and, to some extent, of the language it was written in. Hogue, admittedly, was in a position to take advantage of it, but it was only in 2003 that (largely on the basis of Lemesurier's Nostradamus Encyclopedia [Lemesurier, P: The Nostradamus Encyclopedia, 1997] ) he started to admit that some of his earlier biographical material had in fact been 'apocryphal'. Meanwhile the scholars [Lemesurier, The Unknown Nostradamus, 2003] were particularly scathing about later attempts by some lesser-known authors (Hewitt, 1994; Ovason, 1997; Ramotti, 1998) to extract 'hidden' meanings from the texts with the aid of anagrams, numerical codes, graphs and other devices.

On the evidence of the many other Nostradamus interpretations that have appeared in recent years, it thus seems likely that it will be a long time yet before the findings of the scholars are more widely known among the English-speaking public at large. --PL 16:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * One or two of the internal links in the above don't seem to have worked. Can anybody fix them, please? --PL 16:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now tightened up on some of the language and added a few items to paragraph 4. --PL 08:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that this would make the main article immeasurably better. It provides the balance that was missing, it doesn't snipe at the others in any way, and I don't think anyone reading it will be inclined to belive in any of these interpretations unless they were previously disposed/determined to do so anyway. Davkal 09:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're probably right. But you don't think that it would be too long for the main article, or make the article itself too long? --PL 15:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so since as long as the intial summary does a good job (which I think it now does), people can get the basics from that and then read as much or as little more as they want. Davkal 21:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I've inserted it in the main article for now, and trimmed the preceding entry to minimise unnecessary duplication. I've also eased the flow into the following section. Perhaps Jim would be kind enough to turn the square-bracketed bits into proper note-references with his usual technical efficiency? --PL 09:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * C'est fini! &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Many thanks, Jim. An excellent effort! It has the incidental effect, too, of shortening the section considerably! --PL 15:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

End of the world
Coming soon - you'll see, only 7 hours and 25 minutes left until the earth turns to flame and the antichrist rises!! - you'll see! Benjaminstewart05 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Alas, no trumpets, no broken seals, no horsemen, the sun is still shining, the moon was not red. Bummer.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're interpreting Benjaminstewart05's words too literally. For such an active Nostradamus contributor you should have wider ideas of how to interpret predictions. anyway I second that we should archive all the stuff above, with a note maybe for anyone to feel free to move back any section they'd still like to continue  87.97.8.244 18:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC).