Talk:Nostradamus

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2014

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

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

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

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

So i suggest the following new paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A big 'Ciao' from Italy

Guglielmo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks anyway for the time you dedicated to me

Regards

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

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

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

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

TROLL ALERT (Admin request)

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

External links to books

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

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

OK, I'm off!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Further reading'

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

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

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

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

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

please terrorists, stop deleting real history on Nostradamus. PL has been known to be a Moslem who hates Nost because he was Christian.

What lemonhead is trying to say, but he has always had communication difficulties was that he chooses no longer to edit the article because he is not sure of what is going on anylonger? He missed his pyramid book mark because he could not figure out the correct ephemeride model ( which was in existence when he wrote the book, and published by 1924 [5] with the exact arc of annu-pyramidal 6,000 mark to the center of the boss, which correlates to the second week of September 2001, Gregorian extrapolated -- he totally missed that one but a select few others had not!) , in which we know Nostradamus had done so by cat. 10.72, as he tells us in prose ( but still clouded for his future embodiment(s) retrieval purposes). His buddy? (owner of http://www.propheties.it/) he mentions the place' New York, the president 'is' Bush ( who actually helped fund it we are now beginning to learn & his daddy killed Kennedy new tech is helping clear up AP photogs HD films) and it was Google post ( so still archived, posted in March of 1999, so well before!) I confirmed it and downloaded it ; Ed Dames goes on Art Bell in 1998 and says that 10.72 will be a terrorist attack on Giant's Stadium New York ( well close) -- both had wrong dates but got closer than anyone on Earth, even I, because I had a whole more dire set of affirmations. Then heavy weights of calendar compilations from N.A.S.A. confirm that the years are mixed up and 1999 is actually 2001, and so we just add '7' months and of course, 'terror comes form the sky.' In the U.K. the academics that lemonhead 'guards' like a boarder-guard argue that Islamic sha'riah needs to be implemented because white people are stupid (lemonhead looks white skin)! I believe these moslems want you Brits to move out! That is utter garbage and he defends them and Wilson took him to school, in under a year where he has spend 40+ and still cannot figure it out. In quantum physics the debate is ONLY around the prediction between the two states and the smarties know that fate (maths) can only solve the codes, choice is but an illusion and why Lemonhead changes his themes in each linear progressive book he composes ( mostly of old stuff splattered in which a graph or two of a new brain -fart.) does reveal. Sad that his first shot at the expression for 10.72 which I think was around for a while was the return of Jesus who will say, just screw it, the world is Evil, lets get the Apok-War started! It is quite possible in quantum theory all are correct ( not all 10.72s, just these logical connectors!). No one today in the west likes Jesus ( actually it is a whitey fear of Muhemits) so no one will like Nostradamus -- so your heroes I guess are the sex islanders slave romper rumors and the queen's robot image? Not much to look forward too, but heay, that is what u all want. His other good buddy Gary Somai argued that Herod had to die in 2 BC because of an eclipse, so we all tried to calm the tard and asked: well could anyone see that eclipse from the Levant? He ran away, after the pdf showed = Nope! So Josephus must have been writing on the eclipse that could ( Herod dies near a solar eclipse) had been seen in 4 BC ; so Jesus must have already been born. Lemonhead puts Jesus birth in 2 bc, because he is not a scientist. Gary was mentioned in one of Lemonhead's screeds with papers attached and binded and put on sale. The academic logic and certitude are astoundingly immature and quite embarrassing to the white skinned European race. If this continues maybe God should just allow the Moslems to take 'all of Britain' and the white tard race can go directly to hell! Of course s/he will take the chosen few first! the pen name, le mesurier is a connotative expression of the early 20 th century to imply "a gentleman messiah." I think the world trusts messiahs only when they not make egregious mistakes of basic facts. People do not want to buy books to hear the author attack others in their field ( w/ bad facts too boot) we have social media to do that now. for a general audience, if you are not attacked by your 'establishment' peers than something is going terribly wrong.

− − stop taking down facts. and Peter lemesurier is not his name, it is Peter Eward Britton, born that way. We call him lemonhead because calling him the correct ISIS supporing Academic would be too obvious.

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