Talk:Nostradamus in popular culture

Neutral Point of View

Perhaps it is just me, but all of the incessant side commenting (see, for example, the parenthetical statement of "naturally" regarding the anagram of Arethusa) appears to be unnecessary. Although it may be a widely held view of the invalidity of Nostradamus, that doesn't disregard the fact that this is, indeed, expressing a point of view. Anyone agree? Oscabat 04:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The 'Arethusa' comment, clearly, has nothing whatever to do with the validity or invalidity of Nostradamus – but merely with the gullibility and 'Americocentricity' of the would-be interpreters referred to, and perhaps their geographical and mythological ignorance, too. All this is quite obvious from the evidence presented, and thus hardly POV. Much the same possibly applies to the other occasions that you refer to – though unless you are more specific it is difficult to be definite. However, there's no reason why you shouldn't edit the bits in question – and remove the NPOV tag when you've done so (provided, of course, that yours isn't POV!!). (Indeed, unless you edit the bits in question, the neutrality of the article won't in fact be disputed, so you should remove the NPOV tag anyway!) You have, after all, already signalled quite properly your wish to do so here: having so signalled, there doesn't seem to be any reason why you should need to flag each individual change here. So please go ahead... --PL 07:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

One needs to think long and hard before slapping a POV tag on an article. As PL explained, the use of "naturally" refers to the lack of understanding of the quatrain and the need to force the words of the quatrain to fit a certain predetermined mindset. I see nothing wrong with the use of side comments in this topic, if they serve a valid purpose. •Jim62sch• 11:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I understand completely that it is certainly gullibility, but I don't think that justifies facetious comments. Let the reader decide for himself. I disagree with Jim: I don't feel as if the comments are merited, because they certainly aren't any more informative than the other information. As for the NPOV tag: perhaps it did not merit the tag, but the explanation of the NPOV tag is exactly what I was explaining. I'll go ahead and remove it. Oscabat 03:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with Jim, though, that the word 'naturally' had the positive merit of indicating that the interpretation in question derived from a pre-existing mindset. Difficult to indicate this without seeming facetious: 'inevitably' would, I suppose, serve the same end, but run the same risk. Anyway, I'll go along with your suggestion, and have suggested a further slight tweak or two to improve the paragraph. Any other objectionable bits? --PL 08:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the article looks great. Thanks for your cooperation. Oscabat 14:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been nice working with you. •Jim62sch• 16:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is very unneutral and provides the reads with the point blank opinion that Nostradamus is not a prophet and that the only reason he has such a following is because of hoaxes.

Ah, Mr Anonymous again! Please list here any respects in which the article fails to reflect the reputable sources listed in the main article. --PL 08:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

For example,

"(which is incorrect; New York's latitude is 40°47') (even though Nostradamus refers in this way to various 'New Cities' whose names, unlike 'New York', literally mean 'New City', and especially Naples – from Greek Neapolis, 'new city'); and most of the attempts to fit in the 'Normans' seemed contrived at best. After the factual nature of these claims was widely denied, some suggested instead that the first line might refer to the actual angle at which one of the hijacked airliners hit the World Trade Center (which seemed unlikely, even if the rest had fit)."

ALL OF THAT IN ONE PARAGRAPH! Is there any chance I could get some citations for opinionated statements such as, "After the factual nature of these claims was widely deined"? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to remain unbiast? I came to this Wikipedia article hoping to learn of some of Nostradamus' prophecies, but they only thing I found was a truckload of bunk from a bunch of biast Wikipedians. This article needs major POV revisions.

Once again, please refer to the main article's sources. Most of those subsequent to 1991 explicitly denied the claims. If you really want 'to learn of some of Nostradamus's prophecies', meanwhile, your best plan will be to read them. This you can do via the main article's external links. That's what they're for. Given that Nostradamus wrote at least 7280 prophecies, a mere encyclopedia article is clearly no place for giving actual details of them! --PL 08:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: I'm not the same anonimous of above.

Even if I don't believe in the prophesies, I find the article far too impartial for an enciclopedia. And yes, you can say "but there are proofs", but that should go to an article titles "Claims against the predictions of Nostradamus". Even further, I think the title is wrong, I mean, were he right or wrong, Nostradamus was a friggin prophet. Considering his predictions "popular culture" is very incorrect, as those were what originally deserved him hundreds of books.

Once again, I don't believe in prophets, but neither I believe in miracles and I don't consider Jesus walking on water to be "Jesus in popular culture" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.103.198 (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

An Encyclopaedia article is supposed to be impartial!! As for Nostradamus being a 'friggin prophet', if you had read the main article you would have seen that he himself repeatedly denied being anything of the kind. And, finally, the article doesn't describe his predictions as "popular culture": it merely refers readers to the way in which they are reflected in it. If you want to learn about the predictions themselves, read the main article. --PL (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with my fellow Anons that this article is biased. For instance, "But the phrase d'effraieur (of terror) in fact occurs nowhere in the original printing, which merely uses the word deffraieur (defraying, hosting)." From what I have read, his writings were transcribed at the printers. There is really no way you can say conclusively if Nostradamus himself actually meant d`effraieur or deffraieur. A poor example of an article for Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.158.80.135 (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have also thought for a long time that Nostradamus was talking about terror. But one day, I read the original pages of the first editionsss (http://www.propheties.it/bibliotheque/index.html). He never talks about terror, but deffraieur (Ok, there is a "game of words" if we want). You should read the original editions and you will see that their is no doubt at all. Talking about terror is talking about nothing Nostradamus originally wrote. Alchy, 14 June 2009 (sorry for my English, I'm French!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.171.244.193 (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Whatever doubts there may be about what the original manuscript said (though the fact that all three of the first 1568 printings have deffraieur suggests that that is what it actually said), the fact remains that we can only go on what the texts say, not on what we think Nostradamus may have intended, which would be carte blanche for the nutters to ascribe to him whatever they like -- as indeed they constantly do even in the absence of such textual doubts! --PL (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been reading this article and I also believe that it's very distorted. In this article, as in any other in wikipedia, you yould just mention the facts and all the sources of them, rather than what you think are the right facts and the wrong ones. This would be more correct: 'there are people who believe that Nostradamus was a prophet who predicted the future, and they believe this:... based on these facts:... ; but there are also people who detract this, and they say this:... are based on these facts:... '. You shouldn't say or even give clues of who you agree with, because wikipedia is meant to show the facts and spread the reason with objectivity, so the other people get the right answers. You always get the right ones investigating by yourself, and never letting other people convince you. Aside from this, it's not correct to use connectors like 'of course...' in such subjective ways, because that sounds more like someone's writing instead of someone collaborating with wikipedia, since you're really imposing your own opinion (even if you didn't mean to do so). Using connectors like 'however' properly would be more respectful and correct. And as you can see, if you're not objective with what you write in here, even reasonable people will be scared away. TaikunNozomu (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(This is a very old discussion!) You may be right about 'of course' (and are welcome to delete it), but please bear in mind that this article is merely an offshoot of the main article Nostradamus, which is indeed balanced as you suggest and based exclusively on the sources there listed. --PL (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Movement

OK, I moved that almost unuseful section that made very heavy the articcle. --Giancarlo Rossi 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK by me! --PL 16:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Two more..

i remember that in the begining of every Futurama episode there was some kind of message displayed, and one time it was 'predicted by nostradamus'
also in Brainiacs (actually a commercial of them) Gear said 'the only science show predicted by nostradamus' --Tyriel 10:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's just about how Nostradamus is usually treated: 'Nostradamus predicted whatever has just happened'. --PL 10:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What, Nostradamus didn't predict September 11? Oh no!!!!!!!! I've been basing my whole life on falsehoods!

I'm no Nostradamus expert, but it seems kind of strange that the 'supposed prophecies' section only contains a single example (and an extremely recent one, at that), while seeming to gloss over the other predictions commonly attributed. Would it be possible to include analysis of other predictions, like his 'Hitler' and 'World War' predictions? PolarisSLBM 11:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How about taking a look at the 'Alternative views' section of the main Nostradamus article? --PL 15:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. A nuetral POV in this section would entail an equal amount of "supposed prophecies" as opposed to bogus and ambiguous materials in which Nostradamus is refered to in our modern era. Also if the author is going to cherry pick certain quatrains to debunk he/she must also explain the credibility/validity of other quatrains. I understand that Nostradamus' use of words are obscure and often times cryptic, still raises valid questions of how close he came to projecting certain words right. For example, by noting that "Hister" (who Nostradamus named the second anti-christ) is also referred to as the lower Danube river misleads the reader to assume that usage of the word is artificial or fraudulent. On the contrary, one may envision an exhaustive amount of substantial facts to validate the enormous adjacency that this word entangles. None of which are listed.

Also Nostradamus had a more profound and virtualistic tone to his legacy dating back to most of mankind since the 1550's A.D., not as mostly a celebrity of our culture who makes cameo appearances. Please consider the deletion of most of these dubious references as they do not reflect the views of modern culture and can be made the case as comic "over-kill". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danimal22 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Danimal22 (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

1. If you know of any of Nostradamus's predictions that have been fulfilled according to the reputable sources listed in the main article, please list them here so that they can be featured.

2. Nostradamus nowhere refers to a 'second Antichrist', and so does not identify him with 'Hister'.

3. Nostradamus himself refers in his 1554 Almanac to la riviere Hister dite Danube. Wanna argue with him?

4. Consequently any 'artificial or fraudulent' use of the term relates to modern commentators who so want it to refer to Hitler: it has nothing to do with Nostradamus himself.

5. Re featuring such views, please see the 'Alternative views' section of the main Nostradamus article.--PL (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.nostradamus101.com/prophecies/part2/P2/, need I say more?Danimal22 (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be pretty pointless, certainly. Widely the verses cited may be referred to Hitler, but not by any of the reputable sources listed either under Hister on in the main Nostradamus article. III.35 probably refers to the contemporary 'Dr' John Dee (and Hitler wasn't born in the far west of Europe!); II.24 refers to the developments outlined under Hister, and not to Hitler; IV:68 refers to the Rhine and Danube (a pairing so often found in Nostradamus), and not to Hitler; V.29 refers to the advance of the contemporary Ottomans; and I.35 doesn't mention 'Hister' at all (all as per Lemesurier, Nostradamus, The Illustrated Prophecies, to say nothing of Brind'Amour, Cchevignard, Clebert, Wilson et al. Whoever produced the web-page seems to have been obsessed with trying to feed 'Hitler' into Nostradamus, rather than in dispassionately researching the verses concerned for what they actually said. In such cases I'm afraid it's a case of 'Garbage in, garbage out.' --PL (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Beasts ferocious with hunger will cross the rivers, The greater part of the battlefield will be against Hister. Into a cage of iron will the great one be drawn, When the child of Germany observes nothing.

(Century 2, Quatrain 24)

Beasts ferocious with hunger will swim across the rivers is generally interpreted as Adolf Hitler and the German Army invading France. The greater part of the army will be against Hister is interpreted to mean the alliance that eventually defeated him. The cage of iron may refer to his bunker or to tanks, which Nostradamus would have no words for or ways of describing back in the sixteenth century.[1]

So you actually think "battle field will be against Hister", refers to a battlefield against the Danube river? That is what actually sounds like garbage to me. I guess somone like you with an obvious bias, would never be able to have a belief in any written prediction, unless every proper noun is spelled 100% accurately. The relations are too akin to be thrown out as garbage. In other words, the similarities of references to Hister and Germany, are closer than they are farther away, to simply be dubbed as garbage.Danimal22 (talk) 08:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a question of what I think. No reputable authority on the subject shares this view, however 'general' it may be among those ignorant of the subject and the language. The French expression involved means not 'against Hitler', but 'close by the Danube', and the 'cage of iron' is what Tamburlaine, in the account by Poggio on which the verse is clearly based, was literally dragged all over Asia in (see the details here. (And incidentally, Leonardo da Vinci had already designed a tank!) --PL (talk) 11:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:NostradamusHisteria.JPG

Image:NostradamusHisteria.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You took my stuff out of Nostradamus's WTC article

I know Wiki's rules prohibit original research, but all I did was a bunch of stuff that's easily provable for one's self. I mean a lat. and long. map, an a simpleton's knowledge of history. That's less reputable, merely because I haven't published a book about it? I was only trying to help. Didn't you like any of it, at least?

Yes, I did. Unfortunately, though, it can't be included under Wiki rules. There's lots of stuff I would like to include, too, but can't! Perhaps under 'Discussion' here? Best --PL (talk) 09:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Given the inclusion of an explanation of the implausibility of Quatrain I.87, immediately succeeding the place where I appended material, I have replaced my material and made it look much more professional, per Wiki's standards. It is no less in keeping with Wiki's rules as is the section succeeding it, about Quatrain I.87.

On the contrary, the latter specifically cites Brind'Amour, Lemesurier and Somai as sources, as required. Yours needs to do likewise. Until then I have removed it (possibly I should merely have tagged it) and suggested that you include it here. Well worth doing, I would think -- but for the fact that this board is supposed to be about the article, not Nostradamus. Perhaps you could modify it slightly while doing so, to put it within a context of discussing its inclusion? That should satisfy the regs. No hard feelings! Possibly join a Nostradamus forum and then cite any discussion of that plus a date as your source? If so, please see the external links to the main article Nostradamus (I'm trying to be helpful here!!). --PL (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sick of nostradamus

How many god damn history specials have to be done on these vague quatrains? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.136.35 (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

More like 'Mystery specials', or even 'Hysteria specials'! The answer is probably, 'as many as the public are prepared to be taken in by'!  :( --PL (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

July and the Seventh Month

Removed the phrase ", just as it always had been" where it is referring to July being the seventh month. The text within this section of the article already contradicts this phrase, as well as it being inaccurate as September was previously the seventh month (as also attested by the meaning of the "september" = "seventh month") before the New Year was shifted from the end of March to the 1st of January (the actual previous March/April date shifted depending on the particular calendar system — of which some were lunar, some solar — and over time — due to errors in the solar type calendars, such as the Julian). Additionally, even if the phrase was accurate, it doesn't really contribute much to what is being said (it more-or-less attempts to emphasize a point the previous wiki text was more accurately making). I didn't think anyone would have an issue with me removing this phrase, but just in case, I thought I might elaborate here. — al-Shimoni (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

9/11

It said in the last prophechy about 9/11 that "Two nobles shall long wage a fruitless war, the nymph of spring pour fourth a new, red river." That will be Osama Bin Laden and Bush (Nobles, since both in power) decleared war AND all the terror coming after 9/11 (red river) and fruitless might mean that it is no constuctivity and just death 0in it. Might also mean that if NATO goes out of Afghanisthan, it wont change for the better. --195.0.176.100 (talk) 08:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)