Talk:Nostradamus/Archive 7

Reads with bias
It seems every corner I turn when reading this article, I am confronted with a new sentence about how "many experts find no connections." In almost every paragraph, there is something about Nostradamus' work being corrupted by popular culture. Also, it does a very, very poor job of actually giving any account of any of his successful claims, or a list of commonly corrupted claims. This article needs major framework done to it. It reads very unprofessionally and has a bias towards the opinion that he is not a prophet. For example, the very lengthy, multiple-quote section about how he claims to not be a prophet should be removed. This article is very disappointing for such a large figure in history. 06:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Mr Anonymous, given that the article reflects in every respect the reputable sources cited at the end, and that the 'multiple-quote' section to which you refer consists of Nostradamus's own words, it's difficult to see what you're complaining about. If the professional evidence is that he was not a prophet, and if that in turn is backed up by Nostradamus's own statements, the article should clearly reflect the fact, shouldn't it? If you really wanted it to go into Nostradamus's success-rate, it could of course be expanded to take in an analysis of his annual Almanachs, which of course (unlike the Propheties) allow assessment of his predictions against what actually happened in the years in question - but that has been done, and the success-rate unfortunately works out at roughly 5.73%! Somehow I don't think you'd want us to include that, would you? The article is meant to be based on the established facts, not on what people would like it to say. --PL 08:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is, as I have said before, something fundamentally wrong with including the list of quotes in an attempt to how that N did not think of himslef as a prophet. All the responses to the points I made about this, and the point made above by "Mr anonymous", have been disingenuous inasmuch as they rely on mere equivocation over the word "prophet". The point is that it can only make sense to say N's almanacs have a success rate of any kind (even a 0% success rate) for predicting the future if he was making an attempt to predict the future, and if he was making attempts to predict the future then he is ipso facto attempting to be a prophet in the sense we understand the word now. As I have said earlier, the quotes in question merely refer to N's rejection (genuine or otherwise) of the specific label "prophet" in the sense in which that word was used at the time - they are in no way a rejection of the role we would describe using that word now - i.e the role of someone who tries to predict the future. I too think this section should be removed.Davkal 11:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Davkal. The point is that his books didn't claim to be 'his' prophecies (not least because they weren't), and he rejected the label of 'prophet' because he would have been persecuted by the Inquisition for claiming to be anything of the kind, not least because the term had then, and to an extent still has now, the sense of 'a prophet of the Lord'. The Almanachs (allegedly revealing what the stars portended for each year in question) were originally glorified long-term weather-forecasts – and we don't call either would-be astrologers or weather-forecasters (who are indubitably predicting the future!) 'prophets'. --PL 17:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

From the article "He was so encouraged by the almanac's success that he decided to write one or more annually. Taken together, they are known to have contained at least 6,338 prophecies". Explain! Davkal 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Note the emphasis: "his books didn't claim to be his prophecies". &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

From the article, "Nostradamus claimed to base his predictions on judicial astrolgy" (note the emphasis). And, from the first sentence of the article, N "was one of the world's most famous authors of prophecies". Now, someone who is an author of prophecies is, or is attempting to be, a prophet. As PL points out, the only reason he denied being a prophet was to protect himself from the inquisition and to distance himself from biblical (religious) prophets. If all the article is saying is this pedantic point then it is: a) misleading, since the ppint is not made explicitly and the reader will take it that it means that N is claiming to not be making predictions; b) confusing, since throughout the article it states again and again that N is, and is taking himself to be, making predictions; and c) too trivial a point to warrant 4 quotes, a picture and an explanatory paragraph. Add to that the point that the explanatory paragraph makes no mention of the pedantic nature of the point now supposedly being made and there seems very little to recommend it.

If PL's response above is genuine, then the paragraph could simply be: Of course N did not like the label prophet since this was linked to the notion of a biblical prophet. Moreover, such a claim would have left him vulnerable to the inquisition. Davkal 23:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Davkal. 'His' predictions simply means 'the predictions that he was publishing'.Possibly 'authors of prophecies' should read 'publishers of prophecies'. (I have now amended the text accordingly and, in deference to your 'legal' point, I don't think you will now find any reference to 'his' prophecies or 'his' predictions.) He was certainly 'making predictions' – but only on the basis of other people's. If that makes him a 'prophet', then I am a prophet, too – as was Columbus, who assembled a similar collection of prophecies based on biblical and other antecedents! The point certainly isn't trivial. Nostradamus is widely assumed (wrongly) to have been a prophet in his own right: the relevant text is needed in order to correct, or at very least to qualify, that assumption.
 * A true prophet (as opposed to an astrologer or a mere vague forecaster) is one who predicts future events either by divine inspiration or by 'seeing' the future directly. None of the reputable sources listed suggests for a moment that he did either of those, either in his Almanachs or in his Prophecies.
 * Thus, your proposition that the article (which you seem to have found perfectly acceptable hitherto) be changed to suggest that he did, or that he can reasonably be described as a prophet, runs counter to the sources, and would constitute 'original research', which is not allowable in Wikipedia. Do bear in mind, too, that you are the only person currently objecting to the passage (apart from Mr Anonymous, who was making a quite different point).
 * However, I'm glad that we have at least managed to discuss this in a reasonable, civilised way, without flinging around premature tags and childish demands for arbitration! --PL 08:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well put, PL. The issue sems to have been satisfactorily resolved, although "author" would have also been fine in that while he relied on work of others, or often merely recast past events, he did author the quatrains in the sense that he created the "poetry" (although calling him a poet would be a stretch, poetaster, maybe).
 * In addition, a prediction is a far cry from a prophesy: meteorologists predict the weather, but it would be a ludicrous to say that they are engaging in prophesy when doing so.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Yes: 'author of books of prophecies', perhaps? --PL 15:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

On several occasions now Jim and PL have made the point that N's predictions are closer to weather forecasts than prophecies. In what sense, if any, is this true? Davkal 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Only in the sense that the Almanachs (which you mentioned) started off life as glorified long-term weather-forecasts, and even in Nostradamus's hands included quite a lot of weather predictions. However, he and others added more and more political and military elements as time went on. They were nearly all wrong, though (analysis suggests a roughly 5.73% success-rate!), so hardly 'prophecies' in any case. --PL 11:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a simpler question. "Prediction" is a very general term: there are, as noted, weather forecasts (predictions) made by, say, Michael Fish, that would never be called prophecies; but there are also many other types of prediction that would be called prophecies - the predictions made by "the sleeping prophet" Edgar Cayce for example. The question, then, is: what reason, if any, is there to think that N more closely resembles Michael Fish than Edgar Cayce? Davkal 23:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Another good question, Davkal! Nostradamus did like to pass himself off rather as an Edgar Cayce (even to the 'sleeping on it' bit), but analysis shows that in fact he was merely retailing previous prophecies and ornamenting them with historical events projected into the future, much as Columbus, Roussat and others did. Moreover, he (like Roussat) was claiming astrological sanction for it all – which, if true, would have made him an astrologer rather than a prophet. Unfortunately, though, analysis shows that he really wasn't that either – not much more so than you or I, at any rate. Couldn't calculate the Ascendant, made errors in all his birth-charts (based on the tables published by others) and didn't (couldn't?) even correct for his clients' place and time of birth. Consequently, usually asked them to supply the birth-chart! --PL 11:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting, isn't the difference really a matter of semantics? Prediction is objective -- it casts no aspersions nor glorifies anything.  Prophesy is subjective -- it is merely a prediction as seen through the eyes of a believer.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So Jim, is Michael Fish a prophet to those who believe in the predictive accuracy of weather forecasts? And when you realise the answer is no, you may also realise that "prophecy" objectively refers to a sub-category of predictions determined by what type of thing is predicted and/or the manner in which it is predicted rather than having anything to do with belief - even weather forecasts may be prophecies if they are made in the right way - using the innards of cows for example. And, of course the difference between the meaning of words is a matter of semantics - that's what semantic means. Davkal 23:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a point to all this, which is as follows: given that the entire argument we have been having about the use of the word "prophet" has been conducted, as demonstrated above, from a position of almost total ignorance on your part about the meaning of that word, is it not time to reappraise your position?Davkal 00:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Davkal, surely you know that that is an asinine question (or you would if you actually understood what I wrote -- see clarification below). And thank you ever so much for the definition of semantics, although it is, of course, incomplete.  Any other words you think I mightn't understand, besides "prophet"?  This is just too funny.  (Oh, you might want to look up sarcasm, as that was what my post was)
 * Now, as for the rest of your post, I'll just ascribe that to the typical trollish behaviour you've exhibited on this page at other times. I'm sorry that not everyone believes that Nostradamus was a prophet in any sense of the word, but that's just the way it goes.  The reasons you've been given to support my and PL's opinions are valid, and certainly good enough.
 * Oh, just for clarification purposes, seems I wrongly assumed the antecedent would suffice, thus I request that you read the end of my last sentence in the previous post as "eyes of a believer in prophesy".
 * BTW: Rethink your position regarding the innards of a cow...think deeply...why would it be considered to be "prophesy" if your beloved meteorologist Mr. Fish were to use, say (for the sake of argument), cow's innards (or any other non-scientific method) to predict the weather? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I know and understand exactly what your last post was about. In it, you put forward your (false) view that "prophecy" is a subjective term applied to (types of) predictions as viewed by those who believe in prophecy. You also contrast this with "prediction" which you mistakenly believe to be an objective term in some way prophecy is not. As noted, this is nonsense, and so since you misunderstand the way these notions work it seems fairly clear to me that you are not best placed to continue to debate their use in the article. I therefore suggested that in light of this (i.e. your poor grasp of these concepts) you reappraise your position. That you don't understand what the word "prophecy" means can clearly be seen from your failure to understand why using cow's innards to predict the weather is a form of prophecy. The reason: that's just what the word means. Here, for example, is a definiton from a web dictionary: "Prophecy, in a broad sense, is the prediction of future events. The etymology of the word is ultimately Greek, from pro- "before" plus the root of phanai "speak", i. e. "speaking before" or "foretelling", but prophecy often implies the involvement of supernatural phenomena, whether it is communication with a deity, the reading of magical signs, or astrology. It is also used as a general term for the revelation of divine will." (my emphasis) The "cow's innards" being the supernatural aspect that turns a weather prediction so predicted into a prophecy. Davkal 21:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude, I do not need etymologies of words, trust me, especially of words derived from Greek or Latin (or pretty much any other IE language). You're at the wrong tree, stop barking.
 * And you basically proved my point: the innards represent the supernatural, and as there is no proof of anything supernatural, belief is not only required -- it is really the only foundation of the supernatural. Thus as belief in something that is non-falsifiable is required for this to be a prophesy, it is subjective.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Dudette, I have no doubt that you are proficient in Greek and Latin - it is your English that concerns me. That's why I provided the definition of "prophecy" rather than the etymology. Or, perhaps you have your own private definition of "etymology" which means "definition" in which case then, in Jim's world, I provided an etymology. Back in the real world though, "prophecy" simply means, in an important sense, a prediction arrived at by means that would normally be called supernatural. Whether there is any validity to any of those means, or whether the supernatural actually exists, is as irrelevant to whether something may properly be called a prophecy as whether or not God actually exists is for the question of whether there are really priests.

As evidence of this, see the first line of the article "Nostradamus [...] was one of the world's most famous publishers of prophecies." This must surely be subjective nonsense since there is no evidence for prophecies since they require a supernatural component which is non-falsifiable, and wrong, and not scientific and only silly people from the past believed it and I know it's not true, it's not, it's not, it's not. Davkal 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, and as usual, the points you make are way off the mark anyway. That is, this issue that was being discussed (before you waded in with your nonsense) was whether Nostradamus considered himself to be engaged in what we would call prophecy. So, even if "prophecy" was subjective in the way you describe, it would still be perfectly appropriate to discuss whether the term, as understood now, applies to what N took himslef to be doing. The reason this is the pertinent question, is that I am arguing (although I have little faith you will understand the point) that the point of the section about N rejecting the label prophet is either misleading or wrong. This is because those rejections are: a) rejections of a very particular sense of the word that is not made explicit in the article (ie. prophet in the biblical sense) and not, as the article seems to suggest now, a rejection of the idea that he was making prophecies as we would understand the term now; and b) they are rejections primarily made to avoid the attentions of the inquisition and so may not even be that genuine in any case. The question, then, is: what did N take himself to be doing and how should we describe that now? The important point being that N did indeed see himself in engaging in exactly the type of activity, and producing exactly the type of predictions, that we would call "prophecy". For example, the article makes clear that he was taking previous prophecies and then using astrology and possibly other supposed supernatural means to amend, edit, and project those prophecies into the future. Now, given the above definition of prophecy, it is hard to see what more the man could do to be engaged in prophecy. As he says, "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. (my emphasis) The point being that someone who does all this is engaging in what he takes to be what we would now call prophecy. Davkal 11:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * * Yawn* &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent argument dude, how's the homies in South Central.

I have amended the article in light of the above and have several other points to make. Firstly, the uncited cliam that "Recent research has suggested that most of his prophetic work paraphrases collections of ancient end-of-the-world prophecies(mainly Bible-based), supplemented with references to historical events and anthologies of omen reports" seems to me to be highly contentious and POV. I therefore think that some evidence for this extraordinary claim should be provided. Take for example, the fifteenth quatrain of the first century from his prophecies, the sixteenth from the second century, the seventeenth from the third and so on (I hope this is random enough for you), and show which sources these can be concieved as mere paraphrases of - or even do that with four or five from that list. Otherwise I think the claim that most of his proohetic work is mere paraphrasing is wild exaggeration. Davkal 01:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Racism will not be tolerated on this page. This discussion has ended as I will not discuss anything with someone who finds racial slurs to be humorous.
 * [[Image:DoNotFeedTroll.jpg|40 px|Reminder: Don't feed the troll]] &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the point, rather than being racist, is merely meant to show how ludicrous you look when you adopt the vernacular of a homie (e.g, dude, you been bustin') when you are about as unhomielike as it gets. I am not sure why you speak this way sometimes, maybe you think it is clever, or maybe you think it shows you to be wordly-wise - I think it makes you look foolish and that you use it when you don't have anything sensible to say but still feel the need to respond. I also think the charge of racism here takes the biscuit, even for you and you've said some pretty daft things. That is, accusations of racism from the man who in a previous dicsusion referred to the French as the Frogs. Now dry yer eyes. Davkal 14:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Jus' came back from the rub-a-dub and couldn't believe me mince pies to see me old man 'ad been accused of racism - nearly knocked me off me plates I can tell ya me old china. Anyway, must rush, got some pie'n'mash to eat at the old Bull an Bush before a jellied eel knees up at muvver Brown's. Any old iron, any old iron, any any any old iron... sonofDavkal 22:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to intrude on this personal slanging-match, but don't you think it's time we got back to the actual article? I have of course restored the deleted passage, given its obvious relevance. As for Davkal's request for information (if that's what it was), the 'recent research' referred to is, of course that reported by the reputable sources listed (that's why the Source List is there). I'm sure Jim could, if he wished, insert reference notes to all the recent sources listed in it, given that Davkal is evidently incapable of telling from their dates which are recent and which are not: however, as most people don't suffer from that particular disability, I wouldn't think it necessary, especially as I'm explaining it to him now. As for his specific requests:
 * I.15: This is based directly on the apocalyptic texts gathered (as per the article)in the Mirabilis Liber, and specifically, the 'prophecies' (i.;e. rehashes of biblical predictions) of Pseudo-Methodius, the Tiburtine Sibyl and Joannes de Vatiguerro.
 * II.16: This is based on the Annales Cassini for 1194, recording the wresting of formerly Muslim Sicily from the occupying Normans by the Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI, assimilated to Pseudo-Methodius's 'prophecy' of the future liberation of Europe by Christian forces from its predicted Muslim occupiers.
 * III.17: This is evidently based on reports of a local 'omen' at Beaune, though no other record of the event has survived. --PL 10:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive?
Isn't it time this page was archived?, possibly with the exception of the last section? Jim?--PL 09:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Anything that hasn't had any comments in the last week, yes.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel like doing the honours yourself, then? ;) --PL 10:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, when I get home tonight -- of to work I go. (Hi-ho).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally got a round tuit.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanx! --PL 08:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

medcabal request
Am I correct in assuming this matter has been resolved and no longer requires mediation? Ideogram 14:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Which matter is that? So far as I know, no mediation has been requested, and there are not currently any disputes requiring it... --PL 16:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * 2006-06-06 nostradamus requested by Davkal. He probably should have informed you, but it appears to have resolved itself so I will just close the request.  Ideogram 16:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refer to the above link and let me know if you object to my filing. Ideogram 18:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that! The matter was duly resolved, apparently to Davkal's satisfaction. --PL 08:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all has been resolved in the end. Thanks.Davkal 10:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am pleased that my services are not required. Ideogram 05:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

HuH?
Is there a reason that an image is stuck at the very bottom of the page? 68.39.174.238 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Extremely Biased POV
I tagged it POV because this article clearly has an anti-Nostradamus bias. Amongst other controversial opinions, it reads as if the French study has been universally excepted; which it most certainly has not. --CJ 08:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

CJ, if you check out a few of the archive pages you will see many have been making the same point but haven't really got very far. It tends to take about 16 weeks to even get a typo changed - during those 16 weeks you will be assailed with all sorts of arguments about why the typo is actually a super-relevant point that you just don't like because it offends your childlike notion of Nostradamus - your motives and intelligence will be questioned, you will then be criticised for not speaking 16 different languages and the odd insult will be thrown in for good measure. Happy editing. Davkal 08:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Davkal, many Wiki users are very arrogant and unaccepting of viewpoints which don't agree with their pre-conceived biases. And I completely understand this. But, if there is to be any integrity at all in Wikipedia; this, especially biased profile of Nostradamus must be changed. But I realize it won't be easy with all... --CJ 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You would prefer that it instead noted Nostradamus' greatness, sagacity and prescience, the staggeringly high numbers of prophesies that have born fruit, and the propagation of the erudite views of Cheetham and Hogue? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, Jim, it would be best to hear what CJ is actually suggesting before completely fulfilling my prophecy concerning the responses he could expect. Davkal 10:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

CJ, you speak about a "French study" which wasn't universally accepted (I read "accepted" instead of "excepted"). Do you intend the anonymous article in the Mercure de France ? If so, what do you think about the comparison made in this article between quatrain VIII, 72 and the battle of Ravenna (1512) ? See http://ramkat.free.fr/ndel5.html Marvoir 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That certainly seems like a good candidate, and there are many others, many of which can be found by using the links in this article. Additionally, CJ, have you read the quatrains in the original language, or in English interpretations of them?  If one reads them in the original French (or in a literal translation if one must) one realises just how little they really mean.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've only read the English translations, but that has little bearing on the fact that Nostradamus' prophecies are believed to be true by the majority, and the text of his entry is biased to the point of being inflammatory. Personal opinions mean nothing, just because like 2 or 3 people here believe Nostradamus was a fraud, that has no bearing on Wikipedia. And since you guys believe so strongly that Nostradamus was a phony, why are you even wasting time on his Wiki entry? Just to piss off the majority of people who believe in him?

And Marvoir, I won't stoop to your level and insult you for being such a nerd that you noticed my slight spelling error, Poindexter.--CJ 05:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What the "majority" (unsourced, unexplained) believe about Nosty is quite irrelevant, what is relevant is what is verifiable. Are any of Nosty's predictions verifiable?  Are there any verifiable WP:V sources proving his predictions have come true?  In your edit you noted Hitler and Napoleon -- common errors by people unfamiliar with 16th century French, 16th century Europe, history, geography, etc.  What it really comes down to, is that the only thing that is verifiable re Nosty's powers of prescience is that through interpretations that take significamt liberties with the original text he had been shown to have excellent postdictive abilities.
 * Side note: This is hysterical for its irony: "I won't stoop to your level and insult you for being such a nerd that you noticed my slight spelling error, Poindexter". &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  23:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your interpretation; a majority of people (lets interpret this to mean reasonably educated western people) probably either haven't heard of Nostradamus, or if they have heard haven't actually read his predictions. In fact, most people who *have* heard of him have probably *also* not read the predictions, only descriptions of them in works which will generally seek to ascribe to them a particular impression (for instance XXX refers to event YYY).
 * What does this mean? Basically that these people do not recieve a balanced perspective of alternate ideas as to how each prediction may be interpreted. Under these circumstances a reasonably logical person presented with only matrials written from a postive perspective could not be faulted for 'believing the prophecies' - i.e. the opinion of the majority, even *if* of the direction you identify, is irrelevant.
 * So basically, I'm saying that you're not wrong for having this opinion, simply that the opinion is wrong. --Neo 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

As a passer-by, I must say I find the article quite well written and referenced. Claims of "extreme bias" strike me as rather exaggerated. Given that this must be a difficult article to edit, I think the editors deserve considerable credit. it would be a shame to see the article degenerate into a blow-by-blow argument about each quatrain. Banno 22:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations Jim. You have proved the power of prophecy. A few lines ago I prophesied that CJ could expect to have: a) his motives questioned (he has); b) his intelligence questioned (he has); c) be insulted (he has); d) be reprimanded for not having knowledge of every language known to man (he has). I should also apologise for the homie stuff earlier, I meant Hibby raj. Davkal 23:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:DoNotFeedTroll.jpg|40 px|Reminder: Don't feed the troll]] &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; 19:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, when I said the "majority", I meant the majority of people who know about Nostradamus and his prophecies. But I guess that wasn't clear to some of you... And bloodletting was a commonly used method in Nostradamus' time, so the part I edited about that should atleast remain, because in it's present form it's used as if it is evidence Nostradamus was a crackpot. Honestly, the whole article seems like it was written by Penn Gilette (if you've seen Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" television series where they criticize prophecy, you'll know exactly what I mean).

But it's obvious that many of the editors here (friends or sockpuppets of Marvoir and &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; , I presume) have an agenda against Nostradamus and the occult, and are dead-set on making him out to be a fraud. So I'm not even going to bother editing this anymore. And I would love to tell everyone here exactly how ignorant and single-minded they all are. But it's just not worth starting a flame war.

I will, however tell everyone I know who trusts Wikipedia for it's reliability that it actually only shows the opinions of a few biased blow-hards who screw-over facts in favor of perveying their own biased agendas. Good riddance!

P.S. And to Davkal, good luck if you continue with the fight against these "people", because aside from you, it seems they are all ignorant/uncaring about the facts and biased to the point of near-insanity. --CJ 05:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * CJ: if you wish to request a sock-puppet check, feel free to.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Davkal wrote : "I prophesied that CJ could expect to have: a) his motives questioned (he has); b) his intelligence questioned (he has); c) be insulted (he has); d) be reprimanded for not having knowledge of every language known to man (he has)."

CJ questions the motives of other people (he speaks of "an agenda"). He wasn't insulted, he insulted me (because I tried to cite him honestly). He was not reprimanded for not having knowledge of every language known to man, he was warned of the difficulty of interpreting an old French text which already seemed obscure to its contemporaries. His intelligence wasn't questioned, unless the simple fact of discussing with someone falls under this accusation. Marvoir 15:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it all comes down to interpretation Davkal 15:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In response to CJ:
 * 1. The article is based throughout on the reputable sources listed.
 * 2. To justify his accusation of 'anti-Nostradamus bias', CJ would therefore need to demonstrate either
 * (a) that the sources themselves are biased or
 * (c) that the article isn't, as claimed, based on them.
 * I suspect that he would have a hard time demonstrating either. He might, though, discover that the article, if it is anti anything, is not against Nostradamus, but against ill-informed nutters who constantly try to make Nostradamus predict what they want him to have predicted, rather than what he did predict.
 * 3. The article (and Wikipedia itself) is not dedicated to recording what the majority of people (most of them, by definition, ill-informed) believe or do not believe. It is dedicated to recording the facts as established by the most reputable authorities. With a subject as controversial as Nostradamus, this distinction is particularly important. It is certainly not just a matter of interpretation. Nostradamus did what he did, and wrote what he wrote, and the archives (which most people, of course, have never seen, and wouldn't understand if they did) are pretty unambiguous about both. You, and everybody here, can of course check up on many of them by clicking on the various facsimile sites listed under 'External Links'. For the rest, you will, I'm afraid, need to read up on the research listed. If you are linguistically unqualified to do so, I'm afraid that is not my fault, but it is certainly not a justification for dismissing the research in favour of the popular Old Wives' Tales! --PL 10:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No arguments have been offered for the reintroduction of the dubious POV/new research which interprets certain comments by N as suggesting that he thought that he was in no way trying to predict the future. I have therefore revrted to the version which omits this.Davkal 11:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC),


 * And I have re-inserted it, adding as reason that Nostradamus' words, given that they are cited directly from the sources listed, cannot possibly be either 'dubious POV' or 'new research'. In no way, either, does the text suggest 'that he thought that he was in no way trying to predict the future' (of course he was trying to predict the future, albeit using other people's data!): it merely states perfectly plainly that he didn't claim to be a prophet - and since that is what he is normally assumed to have been, the point is clearly important.


 * I suggest you take care, Davkal. I might just let you get on with your silly effort to produce the thoroughly misleading and largely pointless article that you seem to have set your heart on, notwithstanding the fact that not so long ago you were apparently satisfied with it. (Chercher une vie?) In which case, on your head be the result!


 * Come to think of it, it would be rather funny, wouldn't it - one determined ignoramus who clearly knows next to nothing about the subject insisting that his views have to prevail over those of the acknowledged experts listed who have done and published all the original research! Especially as nearly all the most recently-published of them are unanimous in concluding that
 * (a) Nostradamus was trying to predict the future and that
 * (b) he wasn't a prophet.


 * Yes, I think I could quite enjoy that...!


 * Especially as it would constitute original research, which is illegal and would therefore have to be reverted... --PL 16:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Mais, mon ami, c'est avec certitude que je peux dire que Davkal le Grand sait plus de Nostradamus que tous les académiciens qui ai énuméré dans l'article. Il est, sans doute, un savant magnifique !  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Jim, PL: with every word you write you demonstrate an almost total lack of understanding about the points that are being made. I have no doubt that you speak French and Latin and Greek (and who knows how many other languages) as well as an average 14 year old native speaker. My problem with you is that your understanding of English is on pretty much the same level. My point is that, given the meaning of the words, N simply cannot have been trying to predict the future using the methods attributed to him while at the same time trying not to be a prophet. The only way such a point could be made would be if extensive clarification was provided to explain that the words were being used in very particular ways. Such clarification is not provided though and so the article is misleading to anyone who is not aware "prophet " is being ued in a very specific way. Given this, the only conclusion I can draw is that there is a deliberate attempt to mislead using equivocation.Davkal 00:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And what's this "I suggest you take care" (I'm not going to pull a "Jim" and suggest you are threatening me with violence since that would show me to be as foolish as he is), but really. LOOK at the changes I have suggested - at no point am I saying N was the greatest prophet of all time, or that anything that N predicted has even remotely come true - what I am trying to say is that the interpretation of N's claims to not be a prophet (in the avoiding persecution/middle french context in which they were made) cannot be taken to mean that he was claiming not to be a prophet in the sense the article currently suggests - ie.e in the sense we understand the word now - ie.e in the sense of someone attemptiong to use oiccult means to predict aspects of/events in the future that we currently do not believe can be predicted by any means. Jaheseus Christ. Oh, and you'd better take care or something!Davkal 00:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to continue providing material for your RfC. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * All of which (as you're perfectly well aware) constitutes original research (however logical) on your own part, and not what is concluded by most of the more recent authorities cited (the rest express no view one way or the other), which is all that the article can legitimately base itself on - namely:


 * Randi, James, The Mask of Nostradamus, 1993
 * Brind'Amour, Pierre: Nostradamus astrophile, 1993; Nostradamus. Les premières Centuries ou Prophéties, 1996
 * Lemesurier, Peter: The Unknown Nostradamus, 2003; Nostradamus: The Illustrated Prophecies, 2003
 * Prévost, Roger, Nostradamus, le mythe et la réalité, 1999
 * Chevignard, Bernard, Présages de Nostradamus, 1999
 * Gruber, Dr Elmar, Nostradamus: sein Leben, sein Werk und die wahre Bedeutung seiner Prophezeiungen, 2003


 * to say nothing of Nostradamus himself (1555, 1555, 1558, 1566) as cited specifically by Brind'Amour and Lemesurier (above).


 * But I suppose your views are more relevant and qualified than theirs? I mean, hell, how much does actual knowledge of the subject and the published research on it count, let alone actually being Nostradamus?! ;) --PL 08:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Firtly, it really would be much better if you dealt with the point I am making and not some other point(s) of your own choosing. Secondly, it's not original research, or anything like it, to ask that words be used in accordance with their meaning and that when a specialised meaning is adopted that it be clarified. That is, it is ludicrous to suggest that looking up a dictionary to see what a word means is original research - and it ludicrous to suggest that a request for clarification be made when a word is used in a way that seems to go against that definition. The more important point being that if the clarification was given (i.e. "prophet" here does not mean the same as "prophet" as used in the conclusion of the argument) then that would show the argument hinges on mere equivocation and so should be removed. None of this is original, or research, it simply comes from an understanding of English, of logic, and of faulty methods of arguing - all of which should be known to a first year student of philosophy. If you insist on sources, though, I suggest the Oxford English Dictionary and the "sections" on "prophecy" and "equivocation". Davkal 09:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Equivocation
The point I am making is straightforward. At present the article makes the claim the N did not take himslef to be a prophet (in the sense of someone using occult means in attempt to predict future events). As evidence for this the article cites N explicitly rejecting the title of prophet. This is equivocal because when N says "prophet" he does not mean "someone using occult means in attempt to predict future events". The reason this is obviously so is that in the last quote he says I am using occult means to try to predict the future. So, we have a section which shows N saying "I am a prophet but I am not a prophet" which is either a contradiction (wrong and to be removed) or equivocation (misleading and to be clarified or removed). The reason it can't be clarified and left as is is that if it was clarified there would be no conclusion or claim left for which the quotes were needed in the first place.Davkal 10:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So you and only you know what Nostradamus "meant"? Unlike his quatrains, his French in these instances was quite clear and to the point.  Knowing (I gather) no French, you propose to use the translation to ferret out some secret meaning that isn't there?  Spare us the nonsense.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Please address the point I made. I am making the very straightforward point that there must be (at least) two different sense of "prophet" on the go oterwise the statements are obviously contradictory (I am trying to be a prophet but I am not trying to be a prophet), and when these senses are made explicit no conclusion like the one put forward in the article can remain.Davkal 11:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you even bothered to read any of the sources (in their entirety)? I suggest you read them -- the reason he rejects the title is rather simple: prophesy belongs to the gods.  In fact he makes the distinction between prediction and prophesy numerous times in his prose.  Thus, before you object any further, read.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  11:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly my point (a different sense of the word) - put that clarification in the article and the argument crumbles. This is because the article suggests that he was rejecting the term "prophet" in a much wider sense than that - ie. in the sense of "one who tries to predict the future using occult means." This is what the introduction of the argument (before the quotes), and the conclusion of the argument (after the quotes) says. And this is why it has got to go.

And Jim, how many times are you going to go on about the fact that you speak French. Whoopee doo - all that means is that you are unable to produce a logical argument in several different languages. Davkal


 * How many more times does it have to be explained to you? The prophecies that Nostradamus published were not the result of his own powers of prophecy, and he specifically denied that they were. Therefore the article needs to reflect the apparently contradictory facts (to you at least, apparently) that (a) he was publishing prophecies (largely second-hand) and that (b) he was not himself a prophet. The point is a perfectly simple one, reflected by all the sources listed above. What your views about it are, or how you habitually understand the terms involved, is neither here nor there. That is what the sources conclude, and that is therefore what has to appear in the article. --PL 12:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

How many times do we need to go through this. N claimed to use astrology etc. to arrive at predictions - the article says this in numerous places, nobody disagrees with it and it means that N was ipso facto trying to engage in prophecy. There is then an odd section where the article seems to suggest that he didn't take himslef to be doing this at all (the section currently under discussion) and quotes are provided to suggest that he explicitly rejected this idea (even though in one of them he says I am making predictions in an occult manner - ie.e. making prophecies) and all this is then muddied further by a play on several different senses of the word "prophet". Let us be clear, I am not denying that N rejected the label "prophet" in some sense, I am arguing that the sense in which N rejected the label is different from the sense of the word that appears in the introdution to, and the conclusion of, the section containing these quotes. The arguemtn therefore turns on equivocation and should be removed. Or, clarification of what N was actually rejecting when he rejected the label "prophet" should be provided - but when that is done the rest of the argument will crumble so it will have to go in any case. It is simply not good enough to say that all the sources agree on this because what you are arguing that all the sources agree on is not what is currently in the article.Davkal 12:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have clarified this slightly in the article. Meanwhile you seem to be overlooking the fact (presumably unknown to you) that Nostradamus contradicted himself on many occasions, giving (for example) five different dates for the Creation of the World. In fact he made a positive art of it. You are also confusing what Nostradamus did with what he said he did, which were often quite different things. However, on the question of whether he was a prophet or not, he is absolutely consistent. He was no more a prophet than you or I would be if (as many do) we tried to predict our own future on the basis of his Prophecies. --PL 14:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The change is welcome, but it doesn't really do the trick inasmuch as N clearly felt he had some ability to predict the future using occult methods (although he may not have thought of the methods as occult) and says as much in the last quote of the section. We are therefore still left with the seeming contradiction which, unfortunately, is the result ofthe equivocation. The problem is that point you want to make is far stronger than any of the evidence will allow for unless you can find a quote where N says, "Oh, and by the way, I never used astrology or anything like it, nor did I intend to predict anything in the future - all I really did was simply copy down a whole load of prophecies from other people and put them together in one book". This would be, as you note, something that you or I could do, but since N didn't take himself to be doing merely THAT, there will be no quote to that effect and therefore it is wrong to have the article suggest this - that is, to suggest he saw himself to be a mere compiler and little more.Davkal 15:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you're going on what he said, then he was a prophet, not a prophet, an astrologer, not an astologer, a doctor, not a doctor... All we can go on, consequently, is what he actually did, which has long since been established by the reputable authorities listed on the basis of careful analysis. In particular, he didn't predict the future on his own account, and he rarely used astrology in the Prophecies (he merely asserted that he could if asked). So why you're making such an absurd song and dance over being consistent about Nostradamus, when he was rarely, if ever, consistent about himself, beats me. Equivocation was his middle name! --PL

If what you say is true then that is probably all the more reason why the section in question is misleading. That is, at the moment (except for your brief note) it roughly says that "N denied he was a prophet/attempting to predict the future absol-bloody-lutely" when the truth is, as you now suggest, far more complex than that. It therefore seems perfectly appropriate to me to tone down the definitive claim made there and instead explain (you could use all the space taken up by the quotes) that N distanced himslef from the role of prophet to distinguish between "prophet of God" and astrologer/prophet and also to cover his back from the inquisition. One might even conclude with something like, "there are so many conatrdictory claims in N's writing about his own work that it is hard to say for sure exactly what he took himself to be doing." Davkal 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway - I've made my point re this particular section and can't really be bothered anymore. Most of the other changes I had in mind several weeks (years/centuries) ago when I started commenting on this article have been made and I think the article is the better for it. Davkal 16:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Jewish?
A friend of mine told me he was Jewish, this article and the talk archives don't mentioned it, so I "Googled" it. Top hit is that it's a myth (the page says his paternal grandfather converted from Judaism to Christianity). Several other pages say he was. None looked reputable. 207.172.172.221 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. Few on online references outside this article and the External References are reliable – not even Britannica. --PL 08:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Besides, if the link was patrilineal, it's irrelevant.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It would mean he was not "Jewish" in the halachic sense but many would see there as still possibly being an ethnic or cultural element (see Who is a Jew?). However, since it was only a single grandparent and doesn't seem to have been at all a major part of his life, this hardly seems important even if one could confirm it. JoshuaZ 00:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed external link
I have once again had to remove your proposed link, Sasha. I'm not saying for a moment that you haven't done a lot of work on it. Moreover, I think your re-arrangement of the two Nostradamus images is entirely sensible. But offering translations in five languages other than English is not appropriate here. If you wish to offer translations in those languages, then the right place to do so is in the foreign-language versions of the article listed in the panel on the left-hand side. Moreover, basing them on the late, corrupt Bareste version of 1840, of all things (!), is totally inconsistent with the article, which is based throughout on the original editions of 1555, 1557 and 1568.

In addition, I am assured that the Spanish, Portuguese and Italian versions you are offering are all very poor. The German has its merits, but is near-illiterate in places (e.g. in the first verse). The English, for its part (which is the only one that matters here) is full of major errors that are totally inconsistent with the reputable sources listed. I shall be happy to list some of them if you like. But the main objection is that your English translations of the Centuries are plagiarised throughout from Erika Cheetham's copyright The Prophecies of Nostradamus of 1973/5 (and not even on her later The Final Prophecies of Nostradamus!!) and are therefore illegal under the terms of Wikipedia.

Until you have replaced these entirely with much better and more accurate translations based on the original editions, therefore (see the existing links), there can be no question of including the link here, since it will not be (as the heading requires) 'consistent with the article'. --PL 15:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The translations is not based on Bareste edition. For example russian translation is actually Kiev 1991 Lybyd edition which is based on the originals published before 1600. English translation is Bareste 1840(which has no copyright ofcourse). Spainish one was taken from wikisource. The other translations maight be bad, but there is no better versions aroun the internetSasha l 16:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The English translation is not by Bareste. Bareste's was an 1840 French edition (see the listed bibliographies by Chomarat & Laroche and Benazra). The translation offered is (I repeat) Erika Cheetham's copyright translation of the 1568 edition (Spearman 1973, Corgi 1975). Do please try to get your sources right – preferably before the publishers sue you! (see response on my User page) --PL 09:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, see WP:RS. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  19:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This page 38 kb long - whith the same luck you can refer to the whole wikipedia. Could you tell me the exact rule the site does not suite, if so? Sasha l 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A section headed 'External links consistent with the article' cannot possibly offer a recommended link to a site that is (a) inconsistent with the article, (b) grossly inaccurate and (c) illegal! -- (unsigned comment left by USER:PL at 04:03, 11 August 2006)

The link to Nostradamus International Wiki site
Could anybody tell me why this link should not be in the list of "external links" with the others? It has almost all the materials what all the rest of the websites have + "it is international"(now has about 7 translations and more are coming soon) and it is "wiki based"(so the additions of the information and improving the translation is allowed). So it makes this website in some parts unique among the internet.

User:PL has been said "1840 Bareste is NOT original text: mistranslations in 5 other languages are irrelevant to Anglophone readers", but there is no notice on the website that Bareste is original, otherwise - it is plaсed in the group of the "translations and interpretations" and are opened for editing. The translations may be not the best, but you will hardly find the better ones in the whole internet(for example Russian, Italian and Spain are the best known). About the irrelevance it is a silly reason too, couse the site has not only international translation, but the original texts and some of them for example are almost unique among the internet and you cannot find them anywhere esle.

User:Jim62sch has been said "The translations in at least Spanish & Portuguese are bogus", but there is no complete Portuguese version yet on the website(coming soon), and the Spanish version is one of the best known(compare Nostra Wiki with Wikisource for example).

So, could you please be so kind as to stop removing such an important link from the list. Sasha l 16:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Sasha, it fails WP:RS...sorry, but it does. And that, quite frankly, is sufficient to keep it off of the page.
 * Now, while you argue that the Spanish is the best translation known, can you read either Middle French or Modern Spanish? (I can, and PL is fluent in Middle French).  The Spanish mistranslation, as well as the Portuguese and Russiasn, have portions written in the first person! Read the original French -- no first person there, all 3rd.  The Italian is still littered with Russian words and Cyrillic characters, and the German, as PL has pointed out is seriously deficient.
 * Bottom line here -- are you proficient in any of the target languages other than Russian and English? If not, you're really arguing with the wrong two people, as PL and I have all but Russian thoroughly covered, and I know enough to fight my way through Russian (if I really, really have to ).   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  20:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Let it be so - you might be right. But what can you say about that:


 * 1) . russian version accourding to most of russian reaserches is the best one amoung the other russian translations. Based on 1568 edition and were published in 1991 in more than 15000 copies
 * 2) . Spanish translation i took from Wikisourse - so isnt a good source?
 * 3) . English version is the bareste version which is also on the nostradamus-repository website. so you probably might want to remove that link first.
 * 4) . Italian version completly the same which is on main italian site - so you probably might want to remove that link first.(thank you for notising cirillic bug - i'll fix it)
 * 5) . The rest of the translations are only existed in one variant(you might be call it misstranslations and i probably agry with you but there are no better ones)
 * 6) . The site has not only the translations but also has a trascriprion of the very first 1555 albi edition which you cannot find among the rest of the websites in the list.

So anyway, i dont really overfocused in placing this link to wiki, i just want to make a good website so i apriciate any advice from you which help me to do so. Sasha l 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In response:
 * 1. The English article is not the place to link to international, multilanguage sites. Only the English link is relevant.


 * 2. The reliability of information based on Wiki articles is by no means guaranteed, as you yourself are currently demonstrating.


 * 3. Bareste didn't offer English translations: the ones you quote are plagiarised from Erika Cheetham's original published translations of 1973, so you are liable to prosecution by her publishers (Spearman, Corgi).


 * 4. The translations offered on the Nostradamus Repository site are not by Bareste. At present they are seemingly based on Leoni, but I believe they are in process of being edited (see my response to you on my User page). Even as they stand, they are more reliable than Cheetham's. Besides, that site offers much more than just the translations, most of it fully attested.


 * 5. A transcription of the 1555 Albi edition? By whom, I wonder? Hopefully not Bareste (he had never seen an original copy). Not only are real transcriptions of the 1555 Albi edition available in at least two of the books in the Sources list: actual facsimiles of it are available via the links already listed!


 * And, I repeat, a section headed 'External links consistent with the article' cannot possibly offer a recommended link to a site that is (a) inconsistent with the article, (b) grossly inaccurate and (c) illegal! --PL 09:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. I'm gonna work on it. Thank for your advice. See ya. Sasha l 13:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Astrologer" category
1. You can't be a French astrologer without being an astrologer.

2. N said: "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.." therefore he was claiming to be an astrolger.

End of! (or something else "off").

Davkal 22:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In that case I think I shall claim to be


 * (a) an 'astrolger' (since I, too, have been known to use astrological tables) and


 * (b) an 'expert'!! ;) --PL 08:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

PL, if you use astrological tables in order to "make bold to predict" then you would be, but you don't so you're not.Davkal 11:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You might be surprised! ;) --PL 15:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You're an astrologer then - well done.Davkal 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)