Talk:Nostradamus/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Suggestions for the Front Page

1. I suggest a larger opening ID for Nostradamus that includes cultural relevance not only of his own period, but how he still is relevant today in culture – and not negative either.

Point noted. --PL 10:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

2. I suggest making the whole piece dry, and take out personal inflections, like ‘ indeed’ and such.

That looks more like a matter of style to me. You are a potential editor! --PL 10:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

3. I suggest an entire sub-section devoted to positive, or pro-Nosrtadamus advocates, in which no negative commentary is accompanied. This is, of course, to off-set the entire negativity of the entire scope of the front page which is not of universal opinion.

I will look again at this, with a view to checking that everything said reflects the conclusions reached by the listed academic Sources, and that anything that reflects only one or two of those sources is specifically referenced. 'Negativity' or 'positivity' are , by their very nature, subjective, and consequently are not the point at issue – nor are they fit topics for an encyclopedia. --PL 10:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

4. I suggest most of the research be cited to the[ir] author[s] like ‘according to PL’ in the sections he is responsible for. This is responsible. This of course ties into number five.

Absolutely, where such a section refers to only one or two of the sources. --PL 10:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

5. If opinions come up where an author states Nosrtadamus was writing history and not prophecy, then at least three examples in full be demonstrated with their historical relevance. Clarify if all his prophesies are in fact historical writings and not prophecies and cite the author. This way people can debate them themselves. Please do not imply that all authors on Nostradamus unanimously believe this to be fact, unless you can prove it. I’m against one sided arguments, which seems to be a sore spot on Pl’s demeanor. But he can always surprise me. So good luck. (-A 20:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)).

Thank you. Sources should of course be specified, where they differ from the general view of the Sources listed. --PL 10:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Roadmap

I propose the following roadmap:

  1. Start with PL's version (which happens to be the current one) (1)
  2. Restructure to make a clearer distinction between the Life and Work of Nostradamus
  3. Restructure to merge the Skepticism section, Preparation... section, His works section, into a single Work section.# Additions regarding Nostradamus' life to be discussed on this talk page first (re sources/verifiability, relevance, phrasing) (see Wikipedia:Verifiability)
  4. Additions/changes regarding Nostradamus' work to aim at making the section conform with Wikipedia:neutral point of view. This means not making arguments, but rather reporting (neutrally) the arguments of others (with proper attribution). It also means not taking an explicit position on whether Nostradamus predicted the future or not (or, worse, taking both positions in different sections!), and instead reporting evidence as to why some people think he did, why others think he didn't, how common those views are, etc. If possible, discuss major changes first.
  5. If everyone involved agrees to this roadmap, then archive the previous sections (the discussions aren't live any more, and if necessary arguments can be reintroduced), request unprotection of the article, and proceed on this basis.

Rd232 talk 17:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with 1., 2. and 3. above just as soon as the article is unprotected, and hope that you, Rd232, would carry them out. Under 4., I would also hope that you would yourself introduce the additional points you wanted to see from the German version (given that nobody there seems to think they're objectionable), possibly flagging them here first in case anybody here objects!

Re 5. and 6, I would still propose that the article continue to be protected until we see the sort of changes that are proposed by Theo across at least a couple of sections, preferably (since we might as well take them in order) the first two. If, as I fear, they don't conform with Wikipedia:neutral point of view, or indeed with established fact as per reliable sources, and can't be made to conform no matter what (previous attempts to achieve this have resulted in blank refusals to identify specific contemporary sources, for example) then there can in my view be no question of unprotecting the article, since we should immediately be back to the revert wars which (in case evidence were needed) he is continuing to pursue on astrology.

Thus, 5. and 6a. (archiving) – and possibly 4. – first: 6b (unprotection), 1., 2. and 3. last! (unless, of course, as Admin, you're able to carry out 1., 2., 3. and 4. while the protection is still 'on' – in which case, please go ahead!) Oh, and if you do, please omit the Skepticism section entirely: there's nothing there of much importance, unless you think that the analysis of X.72 deserves to go somewhere – under a discussion of whether Nostradamus really predicted the future or not, possibly (though I'm a bit doubtful as to whether such a section would be useful, since in view of N's vagueness no conclusions are possible other than subjective ones, and any examples given – as they'd have to be – would inevitably reflect that)!

Which leads me to suggest an improvement even to the above: keep the whole thing locked until agreed versions of all the sections have been settled, with your good self acting as Moderator and pasting in any changes to each section as they become available. In that way, the final article, once unlocked, will need nothing beyond a bit of improved phrasing and sourcing, and there will be no excuse whatever for anyone to revert it! Whaddyathink?

I also agree that the whole of the above page should be archived as soon as Theo has replied, and this page deleted, leaving only this section to start the new page. --PL 09:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


By the way, Theo won't be able to comment until tomorrow. [1] Rd232 talk 17:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

OK --PL 09:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rd232 for your work. To address this, sure, once the page is unprotected, I think the best way to proceed is to strictly follow Wikipedia policy, in that NPOV, and writing in the style of what people believed, is the best course. This includes adding more sources closer to the primary subject as well, and the works of Leoni, Ovason, and others, written on Nostradamus. Being referenced in a section on the Nostradamus page. I prefer to keep the Talk Page, so our comments, ideas, etc., are not wasted, nor repeated, and can be reviewed in the hope of achieving a balanced, informative, neutral-point-of-view on the encyclopedic Nostradamus page. I am all for balance, and trusting the reader. Noting that Nostradamus is a controversial subject really can perk up the encyclopedic page. Most of all, the article should be written in a way that the interested reader, student, scholar, etc., can find links related to the primary subject, and also the referenced materials they can find in libraries, etc. The more I learn about Wikipedia, the more I like it. In my view, the Wikipedia approach is best course to follow. Thanks.Theo 16:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... to judge by the above comments, things don't look very promising, do they? Anyway, Dave, may I suggest that you clear the page and archive now, leaving only the section below to start the new one...? --PL 10:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Videl, Brind'Amour and Nostradamus

PL , Brind'Amour tells us in 1557 that Nostradamus becomes a professional astrologer.

First this contradicts PL statements, as ususual. Do you find that funny that your other main source contradicts what you say in your wiki version? I’m saying this because you refer to him all the time. Second, irregardless of how N. casts his charts, even Brind'Amour tells us he doesn’t know a third way Nostradmamus did them and, thus, we cannot judge upon his inability to cast them without the formula.


Why? Because part of an astrologer’s job is to interpret the charts. Brind'Amour makes it clear that Nostradamus had a special gift in this field. Apparently, as far as a birth chart goes, Brind'Amour thinks Nostradamus was either in a hurry or used one precise calculation and branched off from that. This meant that Nostradamus relied on planet aspects to eachother and star-angles to planets, a critical theme in Judicial Astrology. I figure that once his almanacs came out people started to ask him for birhtcharts, which was never his intended practice, and Brind'Amour concluded the same reasoning. I also noted that Brind'Amour used Videl, which makes me question him now. We already found out that Videl is incorrect in his judgments upon Nostradamus’s ability to read a chart which goes without a warrant.


(1) Uhh how do you know? (-A 05:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC))


As some of your assertions are, frankly, news to me, perhaps you could quote for us (indicating precise pages) Brind'Amour's actual words to the effect (A1.1)


1. that in 1557 Nostradamus became a professional astrologer [(A2.4)] if that is what you mean, given that Brind'Amour wasn't even alive in 1557), as opposed to occasionally doing the odd horoscope, whether or not for money

2. that Nostradamus 'had a special gift in this field', and (A1.2)

3. that Brind'Amour 'used (rather than merely reported) Videl'? --PL 11:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC) (A1.3)

(A1.1) I’m going to do what you do to everyone else and that is refer you to the link on the front page so you can read it yourself.

(A1.2) Please do not take my point out of context, you show yourself to be silly! "Why? Because part of an astrologer’s job is to interpret the charts. Brind'Amour makes it clear that Nostradamus had a special gift in this field."

(A1.3) Quite damming I say. (-A 00:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC))


Yes, yes, we've been here before in connection with Somebody Else [(A2.1)] – refusing to cite the precise quote from the alleged source when asked. This can only mean that you've never seen it. [(A2.2)] Do you really think it's worth playing these games? (A2.3)

Either you're relying on some unreliable intermediate source, or you're just making it up. I rather hope it's merely the former. --PL 11:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

(A2.1) Ahh, yes, you.

(A2.2) Then how did I know that Brind'Amour used Videl? (1)

(A2.3) Humm.. As far as I know you have been accused of game-playing by many. But that is not why I’m here.


L'astrologie joue dans les almanachs et les pronostications un rôle plus fondamental,

Trans:::“Astrology plays a more fundamental role in the almanacs and prognostications”

Ummm.. that is a false statement by Mr. Brind'Amour..... The practice of prognostications for N. was still JA and not A. Seems to me he is confused. Nostradamus should be looking back in time, while taking the current astronomical data and predicting. Astrology just predicts from a set point of data. That is not what Nostradamus practiced. Before the 16th century, time in regards to a chart was frowned upon heavily. It was considered a weakness and the person who practiced it was not knowledgeable. I figured since you are not an astrologer you would not know this. I might want to point you in a correct direction of Danté and or Chaucer for the understanding of time, i. e. cosmology. (2)

Certes Nostradamus pouvait être pressé ou n'accorder qu'une valeur relative à la précision mathématique... -Brind'Amour Trans ::: Admittedly Nostradamus could be in a hurry or use one mathematical value as his precision. (3)

I like to harken back to the point that in the middle ages, many people had birth times on the half-hour or possibly the quarter-hour. Although there were clocks there were no wrist watches on everyone’s hands as the accusers imply. I bet the majority of charts are off by at least 5-10 minuets in the 16th century. Did midwives all carry an astrolabe? This is why knowledge of the correct time was frowned upon, especially by Nostradamus, who didn’t really want to do personal charts from his friends or the public, but was hounded upon by them after he gained some recognition. The rest of what I said about Brind'Amour is true. (-A 01:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)) (4)


A partir de 1557 la renommée que lui assure la vente de ses almanachs lui amène une clientèle individuelle; Nostradamus devient un astrologue professionnel. - Brind'Amour [(A2.4)] Source: French for PL [2]; Bad English webtrans for Theo [3]

Now PL, if I translate this then Theo will have a field-day against you. I could imagine what he might say. (-A 02:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC))


Re my annotations to the above:

1. How do you stil1 know that Brind'Amour used Videl? [A3-1] Even the article to which you refer only refers to him twice, and that purely in the footnotes!

2. Note the expression 'a more fundamental role'. In fact, if you actually read the Almanachs, you'll see that the astrology (which is perfectly 'normal' astrology, sometimes accompanied by perfectly 'normal' charts for the solstices and equinoxes), actually plays a very small role indeed, even though Nostradamus likes to suggest otherwise – not least because he's using them to predict actual events, which astrology can't do (as the professional astrologers of the time kept insisting, and as I'm sure you agree). If you actually read Brind'Amour's original book, you might also be able to read what he says in context, as you might if you actually read the Almanachs.

3. This is a mistranslation. In fact, if you had bothered to read the sentence in context, you would have seen that it says: Ces pratiques révèlent un piètre technicien de l'astrologie, un piètre mathematicus. Certes Nostradamus pouvait être pressé ou n'accorder qu'une valeur relative à la précision mathématique, mais l'examen minutieux des passages où il combine ses sources montre qu'il saisit mal les concepts astronomiques et même celui des échelles de temps – or 'These practices reveal a lousy astrological technician, a lousy mathematicus. Granted, Nostradamus might have been in a hurry or have attached only relative importance to mathematical precision, but a detailed examination of those passages in which he combines his sources shows that he had a poor grasp of astronomical concepts and even of temporal scale.' (A.3-3)

4. Not his alleged dependence on Videl!

5. In that case I'll translate it: 'From 1557 the renown that sales of his Almanachs brought him attracted personal clients: Nostradamus was turning into a professional astrologer.' [A3.4] You may care to note that I merely asked for the original words and page numbers in question, so that your assertions could be checked. But you have still not given us the page numbers, and you have still not established that Brind'Amour based his research on Videl (which he certainly didn't). In fact, the text that you are using (as you might have discovered if you had looked a little more carefully at the details at the top of the CURA paper) is an unpublished text of 1993, not the book that is listed as one of the article's sources and in which Brind'Amour is somewhat more circumspect – nor even its Introduction, as you might perhaps have gathered from the same details!

And that still leaves open the question of precisely what is meant by a 'professional astrologer'. Granted, Nostradamus was consulted by many people, some at least of whom paid him good money for his horoscopes – to that extent he was 'professional' – but his personal horoscopes hardly constitute a full-time activity. The real pre-existing professionals – people like Simus, Pitatus, Stöffler, Carellus, Regiomontanus, Leowitz, Stadius... [A3.2] – didn't just do horoscopes. Quite apart from anything else, they calculated and published their own ephemerides (for the uninitiated, that's planetary tables), all for noon at wherever they were based (usually Ulm in Germany, but sometimes Bologna or Venice). These Nostradamus applied 'neat', without interpolation for his clients' place or time of birth (Brind'Amour [1] p.332) in the 14 out of the 28 surviving birthcharts that he drew up himself (which is why it is easy to see which of them he has used, and which copying errors he has made). The others he took straight from birthcharts drawn up by them, which consequently are all correct. None of the data were his own.

As for your extraordinary claim that 'Brind'Amour makes it clear that Nostradamus had a special gift in this field ', what he actually states (even in your 1993 article) is that il est doué d'une superbe imagination et réussit à convaincre tout le monde, parce qu'il en est convaincu lui-même, qu'il possède un don personnel de clairvoyance hérité de ses ancêtres, which means 'he is gifted with a superb imagination and [so] succeeds in convincing everybody (because he is convinced of it himself) that he possesses a personal gift of clairvoyance inherited from his forebears.' So much for quoting people out of context (though I have to admit that you did at least try)!! [A3-5]

Still, I'm not too sure where all this is leading us. It appears to be an argument about the article's statement that the (other?) professional astrologers denied (rightly or wrongly) that Nostradamus was a proper astrologer – and the fact remains that they did, as his own constant ripostes to them tends to confirm. As far as the article is concerned, that's all that is of relevance, so I suggest that any futher discussion on Videl and Brind'Amour be consigned to User pages. --PL 12:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC) [A3-6]

[A3-1] I posted the source of Brind'Amour's statements, unlike you who cries about not sourcing what one says here or there, but who can be for sure that it is what he really said. However, many things in it I've read that appear in your work that you cry about constantly. (-A 19:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC))
Brind'Amour's book is duly listed in the Source List. If you want to check what he really said, perhaps the best thing is to read it? --PL 11:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
[A3.2] And were they all Physicians, and investigators of mendicants? Did they go out in the plague and risk their lives to help the almost helpless? You have a wired sense of understanding things. Let along he did all this so he should have a break on the mechanics of astronomy. But he was not a traditional astrologer as you compare him with. Maybe you want to compare to things that are not alike. (-A 19:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC))
No, merely to the professional astrologers. --PL 11:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (A4-1)
(A3-3) Where in the hell did I translate ALL that? Surely not here? Are you OK? You seem shaken? (-A 19:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC))
You didn't. That's the problem. --PL 11:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (A4-2)
[A3.4] Now you are getting it. People actually ask for charts from N, and even some times paid for them. I guess that makes him a professional astrologer. This is right from the horses mouth. You have said he was not. So, I just used your own main source against you. How do you feel about that? (-A 19:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC))
Actually, he didn't necessarily mean that. Please see the revised translation above, which is marginally more accurate in the light of the context. --PL 11:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
[A3-5] I didn't quote out of context. I just reported what he said inwhich I stand by. If the author named ‘Brind’Amore wanted to say that he convinced nobody and was not an astrologer then this should suffice. But he didn't which makes him have wonder. This is why he made this affirmation. He affirmed the causal effects Nostradamus has on his public. Do you agree or not? (-A 19:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC))
Sure – which didn't include an unqualified statement that 'Nostradamus had a special gift in this field'. --PL 11:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (A4-3)
[A3-6] No Mr. If they appear on the front page in part by you than people have a reason to debate you on your decisions to include him or her on the front page. I'm not breaking any rules; you just didn't like me exposing certain things you have said contrary to what your sources say. You didn’t like that I showed Videl to be incorrect about one of his rants against Nostradamus, because this put you – the source bearer - in a bad light. (-A 19:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC))
First, I'm afraid I can't follow all your text-references, and second, I really don't care whether Videl was correct or not, or indeed whether you have exposed him or not. It's irrelevant to the article. --PL 11:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (A4-4)
OK you want FRONT PAGE talk (-A 19:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC))
No, not in this section. --PL 11:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
“which is no doubt why” is needless and a point of view – just state the facts.
You want more? (-A 19:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC))
Not here. Start a new section and say what it is about, perhaps? --PL 11:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Here: (mainly Bible-based) is followed by major prophetic source – In the scholarly academic society we call this overlooking our paper or not proof reading what we say. You cannot have two different but main quantifiers so far apart. If you mention mainly, then the next set of sentences should be about the Mirabilis Liber in which is your topic. Get it? (-A 19:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC))

No. --PL 11:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed is a point of view – just state the facts and don't try to show off.

The end of the world, after all, was confidently expected: These extra words are needless.

Better: The end of the world was expected(-A 04:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC))

No doubt the article will eventually become editable. Meanwhile, something in your seventeen edits of this section in twenty-four hours tells me that rational conversation has come to an end here, so I won't pursue it further. --PL 11:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)(A4-5)
(A4-1) Nope, your main source states Nostradamus was a professional astrologer and you say he is not. That’s so funny.
(A4-2) What is your problem now?
(A4-3) I totally agree with you and that is what I said, although I think you meant to say did instead of didn’t - Must have been my seventeen edits that made you respond that way.
(A4-4) Saying you do not care about the credibility of your sources says allot about you.
(A4-5) I see you do not want to talk about Nostradamus and your fallible sources. Does this mean you are leaving - should we have a party? (-A 00:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC))
Well, I know what the PL stands for, I can just guess at the A. In any case, PL's sources are accurate, his arguments are accurate, astrology wasn't a big part of Nostradamus' schtick, and to add a bit to this, Nostradamus' quatrains tended to be historical rather than prophetic in nature, something that would not be true of astrology (if it were really of any value). Jim62sch 22:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the subject on astrology in your argument only...

Along with your parroting on PL’s talking points from the front page, I may want to direct you to the sub-title section on Skepticism, where PL employs one of Nostradamus astrological applications. If it was not part of Nostradamus’s ‘schtick’ [sic] then why would PL even show this here? I might want to direct you also to his Almanacs that are full of Astrological applications. This seems to be part of his Nostradamus’s ‘schtick’ [sic]. If you actually read Les Propheties, you would also see that astrology is strewn throughout indicating as well it is part of Nostradamus’s ‘schtick’ [sic].

Irregardless of his technical inability in which my views differ in the forms of JA verses A utilized and myriad of interpretative quantity and quality of Nostradamus’s ‘schtick’ [sic], I would be surprised if you asked PL if in fact “astrology wasn't a big part of Nostradamus' schtick [sic].” In over 200 plus books on Nostradamus I would bet you that they all to some extent showed the importance of astrology to his life and work, let alone PL’s work in his books on the subject.

If you mean ‘schtick’ [sic] to mean his life and his pursuits, and how important it is to understand it to our subject, then may I offer your supreme intelligence here the following. It seems to me a man of your stature with your paramount intelligence and who can ascertain the correct judgment of PL’s sources, reading them in their original, can surely translate this and see why it contradicts your statements on Nostradamus and his use of astrology in his life - above.

Anni sunt feré quadraginta, à quibus tam rem medicam, quàm iudiciariam versamus, nescio quanta cum gloria nostra aut commodo, labore certé atque diligentia indefatigabili. - Nostradamus to Hans Rosenberger: September 9, 1561.

If you manage to understand what Pl and I were talking about, it had little to do with Nostradamus ‘schtick’ [sic]. We were engaged in discussions on his personal-client charts that had nothing to do with his major projects in which you refer. If you understood what you were talking about in your statements you would be privy to one of Nostradamus’s theses on Perpetual reoccurrence in which PL has talked and worked out in his work. This involves a form of astrology in which is much of Nostradamus’s life and to which his critics accused him of not practicing a traditional form of astrology. I will refer you again to the front page and the section on Skepticism where PL employs a form of this.

Before I wrote this, I looked at your history and saw that you are all over Wiki engaged in rants about political parties and other projects. You seem to post wherever you want without knowing of what you speak about – noting your mis-parroting of PL’s talking points here. I’m not concerned with editing the front page here or posting anywhere else, and I hardly care about this place anyway. I seem to know about our subject a little bit more than you do. My point was to bury you. Duly noted in your first sentence was a rude suggestion against me.

I may want to point you to PL's spoof articles of self-importance (his glossary [4]) at his wiki page for further conformation of you with regards to article two.

Source: [5](-A 05:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC))

Whatever. I hope writing all of that was cathartic. Anyway, if you did any research on me you did it poorly, I doubt I've ever posted anything on political parties, and my comments tend not toward rants, but rather to short commentaries on the subject at hand. As for the rest, I doubt that I have any need to defend to you anything in which I've been involved or commented upon.
As for Nostradamus' Prophesies, yes, I've read them, in the original mediaeval French. As a recasting of past events, they make some sense, although from a literalist point of view they make none.
As for your accusation of parroting, has it ever occurred to you that perhaps two people might actually be of the same opinion and may have arrived at the same conclusions independently? (Think calculus and the telephone). In fact, your inane accusation that essentially boils down to "you asked PL for your opinion before posting it" is laughable at best. But then, so is your need to place "[sic]" after every usage of "schtick": I'd really hate to burst your bubble, but that is an accepted variant spelling of shtick. Maybe you might want to take your own advice and stick to topics about which you know something, obviously, linguistics and orthography appear not to be among those topics.
Regarding astrology, I was less clear than I had hoped to be. What I meant was that while he may have dabbled (maybe even more than dabbled) in astrology, it was not necessarily an overriding feature of many of his prophesies, although he did use related fields of study. That astrology (as he defined and used it) was contributory to what he eventually became noted for is not in dispute, but contributory fields of study would be the equivalent as underlying causes in a medical sense.
The Latin quote was hardly very difficult (I'm not sure why you thought it might be), but the accents need to go -- I despise that sort of divergence from the Latin of Virgil. BTW, the quote also refers to his devotion to medical arts. Jim62sch 11:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

'Irregardless'!! --PL 16:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of a word that needs "[sic]" after it. Jim62sch 18:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

Ha, ha. I can take a joke too. I’ll have to watch my casual writing usage around you. Anyway, just one question. Does he lift the toilet seat for you too?

Well lets get to my response.

““Intelligent design is a revival of an old idea: that animals seem designed, and this could not be by chance.” This is from something you are working on. If you knew anything about what this means you would note this is one of the major theses of Aristotle who was against breaking things down to the atom level in regards to creationism. Then you would tie it to a period where Universities begun to reach social importance and its re-beginnings in western civilization. You probably want to turn to the 13th century and tackle Tempier and the sixteen theologians, then turn to Averroes, then onto Siger of Brabant who always ends with Aristotles’s Universe. You will probably find 1277 a key date in your thesis as well. You’ll also find the number 219 of importance as well. That is if you want to expand your argument into real relevance. And lets not tackle the simple fact that the Arabs take Aristotle over Plato and call him not by name but as “the Philosopher”, spiting neo-Platonists who disagreed vehemently with Aristotles’s universe. Intelligent design is a powerful force in the world, not only today, but yesterdays, as well. But what I find amusing and was my statement of your history is that of your working title on one of your working-pieces. “United States – The Intelligent Design of Conservative Christians Will Not Come to Pass” You seem to think one political party is the only ones promoting this in schools. Try the west and the east for a larger picture – we live in a big world in case you didn’t notice and what we do here matters little to what the whole earth believes and practices. You see I have volunteered at a church for a long time in which most of the congregation is of the liberal persuasion and they promote creationism in schools as it directly ties to the idea of a creator or an intelligent design, fully agreeing with Aristotle and a large part of two hemispheres. You seemed to be caught up with the big-lefty corporate media intellect that blames everything negative in this world on one side of the party-line. Your article has much party rhetoric parroted from partisan politics. It is so transparent. Then you branch off to include a right-wing notion, comparing, “capitalist “with “non-believers” of evolution theory. That is all that I was commenting upon and was correct in my assessment. As far as I’m concerned there is room for both. One is never going to get rid of God in academia or society fully. God represents a solace from an otherwise a cruel and violent existence, and death and the afterlife is seen as a happy occurrence, more or less Herodotus’s famous observation.

Source:[6]


But a part from me rectifying your ill statements, and your claimed ‘doubt’, will turn to matters at hand.

As far as you accusing me falsely of an “inane accusation” I would like you to expand on this and show me where I implied this. Nowhere, IMO I implied such a thing. I simply pointed out article two on PL’s spoof glossary indicating you as a know-it-all, and implying you possibly read only two books or used the front page for your opinions, as everything spoken about in your statements were right on the front page for anyone to mimic. So I await for your response diligently for this miss-accusation.


As far as your jab of terrible linguistics, your own admittance and apology that your own statement wasn’t clear is an affirmation on yourself in this regards, and how funny is that, ha - does the word ironic come to mind? As for your correcting statement, it is clearer; I have no beef with your assessment. It is rather strait forward and I agree. As far as the orthography of the quote you need to complain to the website for this as I gave the link at the bottom of the post. As far as the medical admonishment in the quote, Nostradamus put it there, or coupled it with the statement to show that its importance was tied to it in its Age, adding another compound-link to his life’s shtick.

You claim that you came to your “conclusions independently.” Therefore you have much to say on our subject, I suspect. I would like you to clear up your intr.v.tended and make a more concise judgment on his totality of Les Propheties. If you believe they were in fact historical observant rather than prophesy, then show which ones or make a totality statement to the effect and proceed from there.

I suggest not using the ones PL has done. Since you stated they are tended upon historical circumstances, this should be fun. History is a fun genre to get into. So come on and lets see your towering intellect or are you faking your claim? What are there roughly 950 plus main ones to start off with to choose from? BTW, it must have taken you years to investigate all of them. I know it has taken PL over thirty years and he still changes his mind almost randomly as he comes into contact with the people that actually studied Nostradamus. (-A 04:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC))

Would it be too much to suggest that the Talk here should be about the article? --PL 09:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
No, just one point: Dude, none of that ID stuff was written by me. Go find the real author and bug him or her. As for this “United States – The Intelligent Design of Conservative Christians Will Not Come to Pass”, it is a translation of a FRENCH Article, the link to which was on the page --
Translation of French article:
Courrier international - 23 déc. 2005
ÉTATS-UNIS - Le "dessein intelligent" des chrétiens conservateurs ne passera pas -- Eric Glover

::[1] http://www.courrierinternational.com/article.asp?obj_id=58580&provenance=europe&bloc=01%7Carticle

Had you a clue as to how to do research you would have noticed this. Had you clicked the link, you could have seen the article in all its French glory. Had you bothered to do research on the discussion page of the ID article, you would have noticed that I was requested to translate a number of items from Europe and to find more items for reference purposes. Had you just one-tenth the intelligence you think you have, you could have saved us both a lot of typing (although this will be my last reply to you, I haven't the time for silliness).
One final point, that PL and I more or less share an opinion about Nostradamus implies nothing more than that our opinions on Michel are roughly equivalent. In my opinion , Nostradamus, and anyone else claiming to see into the future, was/is a fraud. Period. Jim62sch 18:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC).

I agree this is silly to go on like this. I wouldn’t have conversed with you if you didn’t make your initial rude comment. You could have stated your opinion right away and saved an embarrassment. I always respect people’s opinions. In many fields you may be a hella-of-allot smarter then me, but in the case of Nostradamus you are not. You approach our subject with a pre-conditioned subjugated knowledge and do not want to further investigate. I do not want to post about silly things as I’ve done anymore than you, but I sure do want to talk about our subject. You do not. PL I’ve known for a long time doesn’t like to engage in our subject because he is about control and if he delves into the subject of history, in which he is apparently limited, he will expose himself to vulnerability in which he feels uncomfortable. I believed you had the ability according to your claims, but this doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. I’ve personally archived this section for myself. If PL or you want to move it or take it off, then be my guest. Go ahead and free up the room. (-A 20:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)).

A, I'm more than happy to discuss the subject. That I have already formed an opinion does not preclude conversation in that you too appear to have formed an opinion. Obviously, our opinions are, for the most part, polar opposites, but very often in writing an article one finds that such polarities often make the article better, as the consensus tends to seek the middle ground of NPOV.
Additionally, this comment was quite likely in very bad taste, and I apologise for any offense, "Well, I know what the PL stands for, I can just guess at the A". Jim62sch 15:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision of article

OK, since (to judge by the banner that is now at the top of the article) Rd232 seems kindly to have accepted the suggested role of Moderator through whom all edits to the protected article should be directed, here is the first section of the article for comments (and not just Theo's):

Nostradamus, (December 14, 1503 – July 1, 1566) born Michel de Nostredame, is one of the world's most famous authors of prophecies. He is most famous for his book Les Propheties, which consists of rhymed quatrains (4‑line poems) grouped into nine sets of 100 and one of 42, called Centuries.

Bearing in mind that the Intro (which is liable to appear in people's browsers) needs to be short, pithy and to the point, it needs simply to say who Nostradamus was and what he is famous for. Other points can be (and are) dealt with later in the article. The French and German versions add that he was an apothecary and allegedly/reportedly a doctor: the reasons for the 'allegedly/reportedly' (see Gruber, Brind'Amour [1], Wilson, Lemesurier [2]) are similarly dealt with later in the article. Does this need including as well?

Contemporary professional astrologers denied that he was a proper astrologer (Brind'Amour [1], Lemesurier [2]*), and even he declined the title, merely referring to himself as an 'astrophile' or star-lover (see (a) the Frontispieces to his 1563 and 1565 Almanachs, (b) his Will and (c) its codicil) while being notably rude about the astrologers (VI.'100') – so including a suggestion to that effect would be too contentious for a dispassionate encyclopedia article, unless a 'contentious issues' section is included. The self-chosen title 'astrophile', though, would presumably be in order if desired. (-A .1.)

Your POV.Theo 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

POV? That is a virtually literal translation. Jim62sch 03:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If in your response you quote entire paragraphs (as above) may I suggest that you signify your proposed changes by including them in bold, as I have already done, so that we can all see what they are?

It's a very simple statement, so let's see how far we get. It's not rocket-science, after all!


Footnote reference *:

Je te puis bien assurement dire que de la vraye astrologie tu y entens moins que rien... ainsi que bien le demonstrent tes oeuvres, que ne says calculer le moindre mouvement d'aucune estoille que ce soit. Laurens Videl, Rector of the Schools of Avignon and Lyon: Declaration des abus ignorances et seditions de Michel Nostradamus..., 1558

--PL 10:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

My translation of the later:

I can, very sure tell to You, that of the true astrology You
understand less than nothing... also as very well is shown in
your works, that you cannot even calculate the lesser movement
of any star that I know.
This was Laurens Videl, rector of the Schools of Avignon and Lyon:
Declaration des abus ignorances et seditions de Michel Nostradamus..., 1558

Again, POV.Theo 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Nostradamus put uncorrect planetary positions in his Yearly Presages... this because those positions were about DEEP FUTURE...

Once more, POVTheo 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Nostradamus employed: 1) Angel invocation (Anael, Oxiel, Hagiel) plus the demon "Ebuleb". 2) The pendulum over a rounded board with letters (the OUIJA)... this in order to get the names (How do you get the names with ASTROLOGY, dear mr. Theo ?) 3) Astral trance (every night dedicated to a month in the future), looking at the known planetary disposition in that year... this made very difficult not to understand Sun's position (monthly)... maybe this is the reason of the error in Q. X-72 4) Drugs that induced epileptic seizure serpillum ? 5) Other books, other prophecies, past book of history. 6) Kabbalah. 7) Divine Inspiration.

(A lot of these thing could send him to the Inquisition's stakes,

see the film with Rutger Hauer, or the one "Queen Margot").

--82.59.196.57 20:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Giancarlo Rossi

Film POV. Just interpretation.Theo 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the above, (1) seems to have applied, but only (so far as we know on the basis of his letters [see Dupèbe]) to his 'guardian angel' Michael. (3) and (4) may have applied, and (5) certainly did. (7) probably applied only in the sense of divine inspiration via the scriptures and the various saints and divines who commented on them and drew up anthologies of prophecies on that basis. (2) and (6) are purely conjectural. As for the film with Rutger Hauer, this may be entertaining, but factually it's laughable ('mad monks' and anachronistic 'coaches' on non-existent roads, indeed!). Fortunately or unfortunately, Wikipedia is supposed to deal only with properly sourced facts.
Meanwhile, Videl's French comment actually means: I can tell you most assuredly that of true astrology you understand less than nothing... as your works amply demonstrate, you who cannot calculate the slightest movement of any star whatsoever. Just a bit damning, isn't it?! True, Videl was only Videl (though a fairly distinguished one who felt it worth putting his reputation on the line by attacking him in print), but all the professional astrologers seems to have been at it, or Nostradamus wouldn't have damned them all so sweepingly at VI.'100'. Compare Brind'Amour's [1] analysis of the controversy in the chapter entitled 'Les controverses' --PL (2)


(a --A)

Again, damning? Perhaps, but still POV.Theo 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved a comment from User:-A to his user page as I couldn't see how it was going to help the discussion. Rd232 talk 10:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I suggest somebody asks the page to be unprotected (at WP:RFPP) and tries to develop the page in the directions/ways indicated and we'll see how it goes. I don't really have the time to be involved with this any more. Rd232 talk 10:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I know the feeling, Rd232! :( It would be nice, though, if you'd introduce your proposed heading-changes before you go – and even the bits you wanted to see introduced from the German version!

Personally, though, I don't think it would be a good idea at all to ask for unprotection at this stage, since I already know perfectly well (as does everybody else here) how it will go! The revert wars will simply resume. We haven't even managed to agree on the first two sentences yet! Thus, all the while Theo is still around, the reasons for the protection still exist -- and how! --PL 11:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

You know PL, it would be nice if you would quit with the extreme cynical comments, and worries about "Theo being around" and use this Talk Page properly. I consider astrology primary to the subject of Nostradamus (as does the author himself) and also consider the sources I cited more than reasonable. It would be very useful if you would end the very extreme POV edits, and source your views constructively, rather than making false accusations, as you have of plagiarism. You claim to know (ahead of time by the way) how things will go if the page is unprotected. I suggest that you stop claiming the Nostradamus Page as your personal property, and remember that Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. Let's go for being good, honest editors here and strive for balanced, open, and bold views that trust the reader - not alienate the reader. This is best. I also suggest that you may want to resist making assertions on others who edit, and assume good faith, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. With this approach, perhaps a very good Nostradamus article, without the cynical treatment of yours - could emerge. Theo is not going anywhere, and I suggest you stop seeing, and stating me as "your opponent" - I never was, and never sought to be one. If you are looking for one, suggest you look outside the Wikipedia community. If you are willing to work together, in peace, and assume good faith, then I have no problem with that.Theo 13:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


Refusing to comment constructively on the above version of the text? Looks as if it's going to take a long time, then!... :( Or does the silence indicate approval? --PL 16:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


PL, listen carefully: Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and not your personal realm, ok? Every time you answer, your tone continues to sound exactly like the negative style of your books, and website on the primary subject. Does the statement above sound like silence to you? I suggest you review your comments to me and others since December on the archived Talk Pages, and tell us, just when did you decide what "truth" was to be added to the Nostradamus-related & sourced facts? Considering your own edits, and anti-Wikipedia POV - I think the Nostradamus Page is better off protected until more time passes, rather than you hovering over it like a vulture. I'm already seeing the same kind of POV on the German-language version, and I am not surprised at all at your "edits" - they are quite narrow POV. I suggest that until you have distanced yourself from claiming the Wikipedia-Nostradamus page as your own, and wanting me off Wikipedia so you can return to destroying what could have been a bold, enlightening, and reader-friendly subject - that the page remain protected. As for your comments... well, if you continue to nit-pick everyone with something positive to add - sourced, and cited, I don't see, in your current state of mind, and lack of objectivity on Wiki-Nostradamus, ready for any "constructive work" on this subject. Re-read Jimbo Wales.Theo 17:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


So you do agree with the above draft, or you don't? (Or have you forgotten what we're talking about in your continued determination to be confrontational?) --PL 09:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Would suggest you get back to actually working alongside others, rather than your assumptions - and it is an assumption on your part Peter - toward being "confrontational." Suggest you quit with your tactics, and work towards balance, rather than your POV on this subject, which has proven to be not only in error, but negative POV. Thanks.Theo 08:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

So you still refuse to say whether you agree with the above draft or not? Sure, sure, that's real co-operation! ;) --PL 12:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Mais naturellement, l'homme des étoiles croit que l'astrologie est la clef à la vie. Les réponses raisonnables sont ainsi non pertinentes. Jim62sch 23:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Il ne connaît rien des étoiles, il est seulement un acte. Ne confondez pas cet acte avec la vérité mon amie. Excusez mon français faible.
Mais oui, c'est mon point concernant Notredame... cependant que je me suis référé à Theo. Mais, peut-être vous aussi bien. Jim62sch 01:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Deux oiseaux de même plumage, peut-être (comme on dit en anglais)? ;) --PL 11:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Oui, ils sont certainement oiseaux de même plumage, volant vers le soleil comme Icarus.  :) Jim62sch 15:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Disputes procedure over Theo's reverts and other behaviour

Those wishing to join in the official Wikipedia disputes procedure over Theo can find it here. It already has quite a head of steam, thus far mainly from the astrology group. --PL 17:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggest PL, that you focus on your "own" behavior on the Wiki-Nostradamus Page, and cease with the high school attitude that attempts to divert attention from your POV on this particular subject. I am not going anywhere, and your "wishes" to the contrary will not allow you to divert attention away from you being the only Nostradamus scholar out there. You certainly are not. There are more of us, and that includes me, and others, who would prefer a more balanced, encyclopedic version of the Wiki-Nostradamus subject that your edits have been obstructing. Would appreciate it if you would focus on achieving balance, rather than your constant attempts to divert attention away from your POV.Theo 07:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

You are very young, Theo. One day, perhaps, with the passing of the years, you may learn to do proper, mature research – and then do it. ;) (For the meanings of 'you', 'balanced' and 'POV' in the above, please refer to the spoof glossary on my User page.) --PL 16:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Videl, Mirabilis liber, Brind'Amour and Nostradamus

a. I thought rd232 said no original research, and quoting a translation of original research by Videl violates the code, no?

No. 'No original research' means that the person writing the article shouldn't use it to float his or her own research for the first time, or to reproduce verbatim whole blocks of already-published material (such as Theo's extensive quotes from Leoni). It doesn't mean that we can't use any published research, though, or (presumably) quote the odd sentence from it in support of what we are reporting from it, least of all on the Discussion page or from the basic contemporary evidence – or there would be absolutely nothing to say, would there?! --PL 12:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ohh this only applies to some people. I just showed that Videl had libeled Nostradamus because on the February 10, 1556 Almanac he falsely accuses Nostradamus to which rd232 moved my post to my page citing no original research policy. So talking about not commenting, first go to my page and start with that and I think Theo will address you if you show cooperation. I think that is fair. Why would this be important to the topic? Because it shows PL’s main source in which it is suspect? Just claiming him as correct doesn’t validate him at all. Do the charts and see his accusations are incorrect. Just like I did. Videl is wrong. (-A 17:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC))


Nobody claimed that Videl was correct. Nevertheless, he is an original, contemporary source for the statement that the professional astrologers denied that Nostradamus was a proper astrologer, and so, under Wikipedia terms, is worthy of being treated as such. --PL 09:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


If we cite someone else's research, it's not original research. If we cite what Videl believes, then it's not original research. Videl may be wrong, but it would be original research for us to say so one our credentials; we should find someone else to show that he is wrong.--Prosfilaes 08:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


Readers have already been referred to the chapter entitled 'Les controverses' in Brind'Amour [1], which analyses the relevant texts in great detail. --PL 09:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


“Mirabilis liber, for its part, (some of whose predictions had already lapsed by the time Nostradamus started writing) was not translated into French until 1831,” [ From front page] If it was now translated into a more useful language, why hasn’t it become the source and not Nostradamus? If you are saying that this was his major source then if you publish the script it will sell like hotcakes. But I have a feeling it would not work, because what you say is not necessarily true.(-A 06:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC))

Well, quite apart from the fact that even the 1831 French translation by Bricon is an early 19th-century French translation of a 16th-century text (and thus pretty indigestible), it is, as I said, merely Nostradamus's main prophetic source, not a complete analogue of his predictions, which also incorporate paraphrased borrowings from Roussat, projections into the future of recorded historical events and various reports of omens (see Lemesurier, [3], which will enable you to test the correctness or otherwise of these assertions). Basically, it is a compendium of Last Times predictions drawn from the Bible and amplified by a succession of Christian saints and divines, with a particular twist to support the identification of François I as the expected 'Universal Monarch' and hence his hoped-for election as Holy Roman Emperor. In the event, Charles V beat him to it, so it was already dated when it was first published, and many of its predictions have likewise long since fallen by the wayside (since they weren't fulfilled on the dates predicted). Nevertheless a good many of its predictions (especially those of Pseudo-Methodius) have been incorporated into much modern Christian apocalyptic teaching – largely unknown to those who propagate it! You can, I believe, find the Latin original at the second of the listed facsimile sites. --PL 11:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

(2) You said of Videl on Nostradamus’s ability to cast a chart : “Just a bit damning, isn't it?!” What is damming is that I showed that Videl cannot read a simple astrology chart? I think that is a bit damming on Videl. (-A 06:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC))

If you want to criticise Videl (whose language, I grant you, is pretty extreme, and whose astrology you may find a bit nit-picky), then the time to do it will be when you have actually read the whole of his critique and compared it with the Nostradamus texts that he is criticising. But then why bother? Neither the article nor (consequently) this discussion forum is about Videl, and nobody has suggested that he was necessarily right – merely that he and other astrologers called Nostradamus incompetent and/or criticised him for assuming that astrology could predict actual events. That happens to be a fact, as Brind'Amour reports, and Videl is merely an example of it. That was why Nostradamus felt the need, in every one of his annual Almanacs, to defend himself aginst them (and others). I am not attacking Nostradamus, nor should you be defending him. It isn't the business of the article to be either for or against Nostradamus. All that matters is the established facts about him.
However, you can, if you wish (and if you know 16th-century French), find Videl online on the second of the facsimile sites listed under External Links. The Nostradamus texts themselves are available from the online Bibliothèque Nostradamus, but I'm afraid that is a protected site, and joining naturally involves paying a share of the operating costs! You might be able to get free copies from the Bibliothèque Nationale's 'Gallica' website, though, assuming that you are seriously interested.--PL 11:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sad that Brind'Amour’s source was Videl and a person not fit for even a little-correct judgment. Brind'Amour’s figures are second source to me; I'll ask you where do the astro charts of Nostradamus survive? Have you tested Brind'Amour’s figures? (-A 06:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC))

Brind'Amour's source isn't Videl (perhaps you should actually read him?). It's Nostradamus's actual charts. These survive in the various surviving Almanachs and in Amadou's dossier L'Astrologie de Nostradamus, and are (in some cases) reproduced and (in all cases) fully analysed by Brind'Amour [op. cit., 1], especially in Part 3, with respect to known 16th century astrological tradition, while their figures are also listed by Dupèbe (op. cit.). I have not tested Brind'Amour's figures, as he was a much better astrologer than I am, but his analysis suggests that every one of Nostradamus's birthcharts contains errors, while the latter never adjusted the published figures either for his clients' places or times of birth – which is no doubt why he normally asked his clients to supply their own, as drawn up by a professional astrologer – which is no doubt why around half of them did! --PL 11:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Something deep inside me tells me that you do not show us the whole picture. Therefore, until I can get my hands on the originals, I stay convinced that Brind'Amour is not validated to me. I went to the Bibliothèque Nationale's 'Gallica' website and didn’t find anything. So, if you could provide a link this would be helpful, of course, if your agenda permits you. (-A 00:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

Fair enough. Your doubts are perfectly reasonable all the while you haven't yet seen the research. But there's no point in trying to criticise it until you have! Videl is available directly if you go to the second of the listed External Links relating to facsimile sites (once you have opened it, just type 'Videl' into the Search box). If you type 'Mirabilis' into it you should get the original Latin text, and possibly some selected translations too. Unfortunately you won't find Amadou or Brind'Amour there, though, so you may need to contact Amazon or the Maison de Nostradamus at Salon. For Nostradamus's Almanachs you would need to join the online Bibliothèque Nostradamus, but as I say, that is a protected site, and joining naturally involves paying a share of the operating costs! You can see its 'shop-window' here. Do bear in mind, though, that the article isn't about either Videl or Brind'Amour, so discussing them is for a User page, not really this forum, unless what is in question is Brind'Amour as a source for the article!

Also, can you write a better opening of the ‘N’ identification that also includes a cultural relevance? (-A 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

I'm sure that would be possible once the page is open for editing again – though it looks as if that might be a while. Rd232 has already suggested some imports from the German version, so that might be good to include, too. Care to suggest what needs including (remembering that, at this stage, it needs to be extremely brief)? --PL 11:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I want to say thank-you for the website - it is very useful. In regards to the skeletal opening ID, I think you are well qualified to do it. I just want to see a tight or condensed identification and cultural relevance whithin possibly one sentence, If that is possible. (-A 02:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC))

Something about the Renaissance, you mean? Yip, that makes sense. --PL 12:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

All other debates aside, this article exhibits some of the worst English I have ever seen. The whole thing needs to be rewritten. Jim62sch 03:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully you mean 'this page', rather than 'the article'?! ;) --PL 10:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Visit my Nostradamus Kabbalah Wepage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Giancarlo_Rossi#Kabbalah_applied_to_a_Nostradamus_Quatrain


A New Wiki-Nostradamus Page

I am all for a total rewrite, as Jim62 suggested, on the Wikipedia Nostradamus Page. The introduction should reflect this with an encylopedic NPOV rewrite that is balanced, and that reflects much of the information known about Nostradamus, his life, works, etc. Referenced, and sourced, with good links to relevant subject matter as well. This is more than possible without sinking into the obscure, and narrow point-of-view that only serves to confuse the Wikipedia reader. I suggest a rewrite of the entire Wiki-Nostradamus subject, using much of the primary authors' materials, quotes, and sourced materials on his background: childhood, life, work as a doctor, astrologer, etc., as a start.Theo 07:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


But only ones that are properly sourced to contemporary documents, of course. So let's see if we can agree just on the Introduction for a start, shall we (and I mean not just you, but everybody else as well)? Here, for the fourth time of asking, is the suggested draft text:

Nostradamus, (December 14, 1503 – July 2, 1566) born Michel de Nostredame, is one of the world's most famous authors of prophecies. He is most famous for his book Les Propheties, which consists of rhymed quatrains (4‑line poems) grouped into nine sets of 100 and one of 42, called Centuries.

It really does need to be that brief. The rest of the article is for all the details, though even then only summarised ones. Certainly the mere Introduction shouldn't be 'encyclopedic' – i.e. full of comprehensive information. For that we should need a complete Nostradamus Encyclopedia of its own (such as I in fact have written and published)!

The italics would, of course, be removed in the final article. The emboldened words are my proposed alterations to what is already there. Do you agree, and if not what changes would you wish to make? If, in the event, we can't agree on that, there's not a lot of prospect of our agreeing on the rest of the article, is there? --PL 11:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Jim62sch 23:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's one creative response at least, then! ;) --PL 11:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that Theo is now back, though limiting himself to making ill-advised statements about astrology's ability to predict actual events (precisely the argument in which Nostradamus himself was involved at the time!), trashing sources that he has evidently never even read, and deleting highly relevant material regarding the historical origins of Nostradamus's prophecies (all of it based squarely on the listed sources) merely because he sees it as hostile to his own personal theories.
Back to his usual form, in other words!
And still not a word here to discuss beforehand any changes to the article that he might want to make! Gee, he really is young and foolish, isn't he? --PL 10:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Certains disent que avec l'âge vient sagesse, mais alors il y a réalité. Ah, that would be pithier in Latin.  :) Jim62sch 23:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Didn't do the Romans much good, though, did it? --PL 12:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Not all Romans in Ancient Rome were ancient. -- Ec5618 14:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

New External Link

I would propose to add the following item to the External Links once the article becomes editable again:

Link talk, Citing work & more

OK found the link. Hard to learn to navigate this beast here, huh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nostradamus&diff=prev&oldid=35943969

You need to learn to cite your sources there pal. Just taking people's stuff without citing it is against policy, no?

It seems he (PL) wants to ban for Life another poster for doing the same, and we think that he should be held to the same standards – no? If not, then why not?

BTW: I see when you accused me of 17 edits within ‘ one day, or a ‘ of this section in one day ’ or 'twenty four hours', as your edits go of this sentance ( See above Videl- 'Amore section ) - ha- you seem to have at least ten that day yourself. Funny, huh?

In addition I request de-linking your personal home page from the front page as this is a conflict of interests. Your books are promoted on your website. Also, nothing on your home page is of contemporary sources - the links are better now and we have enough of these - we do not need your non-contemporary views. If your site is allowed to stay, then may I suggest other people's sites with their views then the ones that are already on there.


Next, can you point me to the place where you and Theo had words over the usage of the word swine. What was it for and why? Are you saying Jews were called that by the entire renaissance peoples in Europe? And if not, why did this come up? There is no proof that this is true. (-A 04:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC))


OK I see Theo's hist. and he was out-of-control, a tad. He seemed to be all over the place. However, you need to cite your sources PL and stop complaining that others do not do it while you do not do it yourself. As far as all of his editing goes. I see major mistakes at Wiki Judicial Astrology, but I’m not going to even care about it. As far as I’m concerned this knowledge, which is wrong on that page anyway, should not be out in the public realm in the first place. (-A 05:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC))


To Theo. Well I was defending you and being just as harsh on PL as he was against you in that he wants to ban you. However, your history shows, I just figured out how to look at histories here, that you post all over the place. You need to understand that you will meet up with many PLs who consider a Wiki domain their own, and that they do nothing else but defend their turf. It is better to talk about it on a talk page and leave the editing out until a mutual agreement occurs, or one gets a response like the page they set up for you.
To PL. Just because I cite a page doesn’t mean you are not liable either to quote from it without citing it yourself. And Theo, if you use other’s work you at least need to say ‘ according to so-and-so’, to make sure you are covered. Otherwise you are in the wrong.


BTW Theo, how do you know ‘if’ Al-Khwarizmi is a Turk and not Persian? That is if you are not banned yet? I saw your edit. (-A 06:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC))
I don't think it's that Theo meets up with many PL's, it's that he wants to put astrology into articles in which it has no place, almost as if he's trying to convince himself of the viability of his chosen profession. In addition, he habitually makes edits that even he has to know will be controversial without discussing them first. This in turn leads to revert wars, but, Theo apparently doesn't mind the revert wars, even though he's been blocked for instigating them. Also, do not be unduly impressed by Theo's claim to being a journalist, writer and editor: the Old Farmers Almanac is not exactly high prose, nor is it a scientific journal, it's amusing reading while sharing a bottle of moonshine. Jim62sch 23:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

DEATH DATE

IT IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED AS JULY 2ND, AS USUAL WIKIPEDIA PUTS THEIR OWN DATES... THAT'S WHY I TRY NOT TO GET MY INFO FROM THIS SITE...

Yep, that's a point. Something else from the original article (before my time!) that needs correcting once it is de-protected. Proposed draft text above duly amended accordingly. --PL 11:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection?

Can we try unprotection or is everyone too far apart? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If Theo is still with us (haven't seen him for a few days) I'm afraid we're just as far apart as ever. Not the slightest sign of any practical accommodation on his part, despite a series of characteristic spiels (see his contributions to this and this) that I take to mean that he proposes to continue insisting on exactly the same stuff as he did before. In other words, he will continue to try and use the Nostradamus page to 'sell' his version of astrology (which nobody on the astrology board seems to agree with!), backed up by rank copyvios and hearsay. So far he has failed to agree even on the first two sentences of the article – or even to discuss them (see this and this above). So IMO it would be extremely unwise to unprotect yet. --PL 11:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I suggest waiting to see what happened to Theo. I’m against his edits of the front page. He should, if he is allowed to return, or is not banned yet, learn that changes occur properly from discussing the various points on a talk page like this and not random edits of front pages. (-A 19:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC))

I did fix the death date, at least. - DavidWBrooks 02:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. One less thing for me (or somebody else) to do later! --PL 11:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note for when this is unprotected: the link to "Pseudo-Methodius" should be "Pseudo-Methodius" instead. —Charles P._(Mirv) 18:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Did that, too. No reason to leave in tiny little errors, when fixing them don't violate the spirit of page protection. - DavidWBrooks 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again. Would the fact that Theo hasn't replied for a while mean that he has been blocked? If so, this would of course affect the decision on whether or not to unprotect... --PL 09:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

links to disambig page

This should link to "Syracuse, Italy", not "Syracuse". "Syracuse" is a disambiguation page. -- Mikeblas 09:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Will try to remember this once the article is unprotected. Should I forget (the things that need doing are building up!), please correct. --PL