Talk:Nostradamus

• Talk:Nostradamus/archive (to July 2005)
• Talk:Nostradamus/archive2 (through end of 2005)
• Talk:Nostradamus/archive3 (through end of Jan. 2006)
• Talk:Nostradamus/archive4 (Through Feb 20, 2006)
• Talk:Nostradamus/archive5 (Through May 15, 2006)
• Talk:Nostradamus/archive6 (Through June 15, 2006)

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". •Jim62sch• 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. •Jim62sch• 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. •Jim62sch• 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? •Jim62sch• 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 solely by those who believe in prophecy. You also contrast this with "prediction" which you mistakenly believe to be an objective term in some way prophesy 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. And, for the record, "sarcasm" doesn't mean "being completely and utterly wrong about something and then trying to pretend otherwise".Davkal 21:28, 13 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. •Jim62sch• 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). •Jim62sch• 10:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Finally got a round tuit. •Jim62sch• 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)