This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Now that the last lock has run out, isn't it time that a new lock was installed to protect the article against the vandals who have started to come out of the woodwork again? -- PL ( talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The person itself and also the name of Adolf Hitler hyperlinked is inapropriate, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VLADIMIR Skokan ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Not meaning to pry excessively, isn't the point here to allow edits, then revert if it's vandalism? You must have had vandalism problems, but I'd have to protest locking something that needs some fleshing-out...but it is a good entry as written. 75.21.159.119 ( talk) 15:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty making sense of certain passages in this section.
Specifically, the section starts by saying that there is a range of literature, from the highly sceptical, academic debunkers to the "true believers". However it then goes on to say:
Essentially I think the section needs to be much better structured and worded in order to make it clear which group of writers is being talked about at any given time.
Also, I think the section title is not terribly helpful, as it, to some extent, gives equal credibility to the "true believer's" and the academic/sceptic's viewpoints, and by Wikipedia's standards of reliability and credibility, the "true believer" stance has no credibility.
I know I'm very much coming to this with my own POV, i.e. that I don't believe that Nostradamus predicted a thing and that any belief to the contrary is mere superstition, so I wanted to flag these thoughts up before having a crack at a reworking of the section. I'm also aware that I don't have access to any of the literature from the references (other than what's available online) so was concerned that I might misrepresent a source.
Anyone have any thoughts before I get stuck in? Arthur Holland ( talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added a photograph to the page (which I took myself from outside his St Remy home) which shows the officially recorded date of birth. This is also the date that is recored on his tomb, so I am not sure why the article is so ambivalent in recording two dates, the second of which does not seem to get much mainstream attention. Would it not be better for this article to give the birth date that is recorded on his birth place and tomb, with a footnote to explain that a different date has been proposed by Patrice Cunard, with a link that goes to his page. His argument appears to be that the record of his length of life may not be accurate, which -if true - would suggest a different date of birth. Has this argument been reproduced in any mainstream historical sources? Tento2 ( talk) 13:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It's fine to acknowledge that the birthdate is in the Julian Calendar, because that was, as PL points out, the only one in use when he was born, and many readers are not familiar with the history of calendars. However, it is pointless and misleading to convert this to 24 December in the Gregorian Calendar. For starters, the Gregorian did not commence until 15 October 1582. Secondly, it did not apply retrospectively (4 October Julian was immediately followed by 15 October Gregorian, and earlier dates were not converted). It's possible to play a mental game and work out what some earlier date would have been in the Gregorian calendar had the Gregorian calendar been in application back then - but it wasn't. Scientists sometimes use the proleptic Gregorian calendar for their arcane purposes, but historians should never do so. This is no different from working out what Queen Victoria's age would be today had she not died in 1901. Trivial, meaningless and unencyclopedic. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Why do you find it pointless? I find your revert pointless *sigh*. -- Shandris the azylean 19:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Michel Nostredame gives the formala hint in a public epistle: Que toutes ces figures ∫ont iu∫temêt adaptees par les diuines lettres aux cho∫es cele∫tes vi∫ibles, c'est à sçavoir, par Saturne , Iupiter , & Mars ,[241] & les autres conioincts [...] first published about 1558 A.D. Nostradamus tells us he uses visual astrology ('cele∫tes vi∫ibles,' lit. visible universe), not tropical astrology, for his poems.
http://bookoflife.org/gamma/OI/oi_vii.i.f.htm this is a the major war codex from Nostradamus. You or anyone in the world can now predict any large game shifting war in history forward and backward based soley upon nostradamus' own claim in his public writings. Just because one gets a masters or studies N for 30+ years does not nor will it ever imply they have intelligence.
Nostradamus did not need to create houses and charts and stuff as this is astronomical, as he has pointed out ('cele∫tes vi∫ibles) , ref. to Aussie visable modern astrologer, Bernadette Brady for bring back this concept.
If you have not been able to figure this out you need to get out of Nostradamus all together, otherwise you work for Satan's Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.25 ( talk) 21:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Currently, in the section "Origins of The Prophecies", there is a section that reads:
I changed this to have the actual title in text and moved the picture to the right [1]. However, this change was reverted - without comment - by PL [2]. Using a picture to stand in for article text is a a very bad idea for a number of reasons: 1) It breaks the flow of the text itself. People are not accustomed to reading article pictures as part of the article text itself. 2) It breaks accessibility for those using screen reading software that can't read the text in the picture. For those users, the sentence would make no sense at all. 3) It breaks the sentence for those who, for whatever reason, are reading the page without images. 4) The text in the picture is not searchable. 5) It is confusing in general, especially considering that the picture has a caption, which I gather is not supposed to be read as part of the article text, only the picture's content. Also, it is explicitly against the the manual of style. Per WP:BRD, I'd like to open a discussion on why anyone would think this is preferable. Niamh ( talk) 12:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Can an admin please step in and protect this page? It's been targeted with the same pro wrestling-related vandalism repeatedly today. Damon Killian ( talk) 01:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hy Celestra, I try to fulfill all your requests...
Ya llegaron demasiado lejos y ahora les toca dar cuenta Gloriamacia ( talk) 16:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Be warned -- a troll is on the loose with a very angry bee in his bonnet, attacking both the article and myself. Please block his efforts (see the attacks on me on the Discussion board) and re-protect the article. Until this has been done I am withdrawing my support for the article... -- PL ( talk) 08:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The Bibliography section contains external links to Google Books. This is sort of a bad idea for a couple reasons: Google Books is a commercial book seller even if these are "free" PD scans they have links to buy stuff; the quality of GB scans is generally poor; many/most of the books are available at non-profit scanning libraries such as Internet Archive which have higher quality scans; GB URLs often change or disappear, Internet Archive URLs are stable. -- Green C 04:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Nostradamus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
".... He was expelled shortly afterwards by the university's procurator, Guillaume Rondelet, when it was discovered that he had been an apothecary, a "manual trade" expressly banned by the university statutes,[12] and had been slandering doctors.[13] The expulsion document (BIU Montpellier, Register S 2 folio 87) still exists in the faculty library.[14] However, some of his publishers and correspondents would later call him "Doctor". After his expulsion, Nostredame continued working, presumably still as an apothecary, and became famous for creating a "rose pill" that supposedly protected against the plague.[15] ...."
The above paragraph is not the complete truth because Nostradamus after being expelled in date 3 octobre 1529 received the help of professor Antoine Romier and after 20 days from the expulsion he obtained to be reinscribed...
The source of the historical records is : "Seconde inscription retrouvée de Michel de Nostredame, en date du 23 octobre 1529, conservée à la Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire de Montpellier, registre S 19, f° 105 v : Nostradamus est inscrit dans le Livre du Procurateur (Liber procuratoris)."
Related info at the web page http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html and http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html</ref>
So i suggest the following new paragraph:
".... He was expelled shortly afterwards by the university's procurator, Guillaume Rondelet, when it was accused to have been an apothecary, a "manual trade" expressly banned by the university statutes,[12] and had been slandering doctors.[13] The expulsion document (BIU Montpellier, Register S 2 folio 87) still exists in the faculty library.[14] However, 20 days later, thanks to the help of professor Antoine Romier he obtained to be re-inscibed in the "Liber procuratoris" (BIU Montpellier, Register S 19 folio 105) and so he had the possibility to complete his study and become a Medical Doctor. ...."
Orsini Guglielmo ( talk) 18:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Orsini Guglielmo
Question: Please only show a small amount of unchanged text so that one doesn't have to search for the changes. The first small change, changing 'discovered' to 'accused', results in an ungrammatical sentence. Can you explain the reasoning for this change. The new final sentence is also not grammatical but I am concerned about the content as well. I do not speak French, and google translate's attempt includes nothing which supports the change, but that could be google. Could you expand on what it is in the source which supports this change? Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 05:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Hy Celestra, I trimmed the above paragraphs under discussion and I post here my answers to your notes.
1) Nostradamus was expelled because he was accused to be involved in apothecary works, but we have no historical evidence about the correctness of the charge, so I personally think that is more suited the word 'Accused' than "discovered"
2) The French text reported above gives detailed evidence that the Universitary Library of Montpellier holds the proof about the Nostradamus re-inscription, precisely in the register "S 19", sheet 105 Related info at the web page http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html at the paragraph 'Le doctorat en médecine (1529 - 1933)' -second image-
3) You say ':The last sentence should be omitted, as the 'second inscription' mentioned (scratched out by Rondelet when expelling him) states...' but the 'scratched out' inscription isn't the 'second inscription' but instead is the 'first' in date 3 octobre 1529. Related info at the web page http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html at the paragraph 'Le doctorat en médecine (1529 - 1933)' -first image-
4) I don't have a copy of the book that you mention: Lemesurier - 'Nostradamus Bibliomancer' so I can only argue basing myself on the images and data shown on the linked web pages...
My English is not perfect so if the suggested changes are approved I kindly ask your help to pubblish correct sentences.....
A big 'Ciao' from Italy
Guglielmo
Celestra I examined the extract you posted and I now understand the mention about the misunderstanded date... ...but some discrepancy still remains:
1) Try a search in Google "images" for the character "François Rabelais" and you will see that he wears the same hat as did Nostradamus in many historical paintings and book covers. I absolutely can't believe that on those times somebody could wear such a distinguishing hat without having a proper degree ! Today somebody can also publicly wear Papal dresses, but in the Nostradamus age things were for sure different.
2) How could he work as a doctor at the royal court of France and perhaps in some other, together with certified and high level doctors, without having a proper degree ?
3) How could he had the freedom to fight the plague giving medical help and prescribing drugs in regions and towns where, for sure, other official physicians were on duty ?
4) The extract you posted says "However, even before his lack of a valid First Degree diploma could be officially discovered...." so according to the author Nostradamus was also lacking of a "First Degree diploma" ! And he goes so easily without any hesitation to ask to be inscribed in the "liber scolasticorum" asking and obtaining also the protection of Antoine Romier ?!
5) The extract you posted says "And so Rondelet was ordered to strike him off again...." ...."again" ? He wasn't striked two times !
Resuming all I've the impression that despite many historical and tangible proofs about his role as doctor or physician, is everything deleted upon the affirmations presented in the book "Lemesurier - Nostradamus Bibliomancer". Moreover the term "bibliomancer" refers to individuals that give predictions thru the opening of books at random pages and according to the text present form the prediction.... that title is absolutely misleading and false when tied to Nostradamus...
At least, considering the present findings, I think that further investigation is needed...
If you agree I'm fully available to cooperate with you to find the truth.
Regards Guglielmo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.253.138.212 ( talk) 15:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Celestra, I read the initial part of the Lemeuriers' book and here are my last comments and observations:
Lemesurier in it's book writes : "...he (Nostradamus) was visited in 1564, in the course of a celebrated royal progress through the country, by the notoriously superstitious queen and her teenage son, the new King Charles IX, accompanied by a vast retinue. He was then summoned to attend them again in Arles, where he was reportedly honored by being made Privy Councillor and Physician in Ordinary to the King."
Despite this FACT Lemesurier asserts that Michel de Nostredame wasn't a physician... it's belivable that a queen, and mother too, puts his son in the hands of an "apothecary" raised at the level of Physician only "ad honorem" ? In the Bibliography is cited Robert Benazra and is known that he asserts that Michel de Nostredame finally was able to get the physician degree...
About the quatrain I.35 the Lemesurier says: "...with "d'or" simply the result of the compositor's mishearing of dehors ["outside," "separate"')...
"d'or" means only and simply "of gold", "the cage of gold" is simply the golden helm used by Henry II, that's an evident proof that the author is absolutely incompetent...
But I don't insist anymore, to me the PROOFS are enaf, and this is my last post. Any writer can affirm what he prefers, but on my point of wiev a official biography pubblished by world leading online service like Wikipedia has to present only facts supported by many official and reilable sources, so the "fact" that Nostradamus was only an apotechary has at least to be converted in "there are different opinions about the fact that he get the degree of physician..."
Thanks anyway for the time you dedicated to me
Regards
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Not done per
Older and ... well older. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
23:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)3O Response: I've declined the request for a third opinion made at WP:3O because too many editors are already involved. Stfg ( talk) 11:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, after nearly ten years largely running this article (most of which I originally wrote), I've finally had enough of the trolls, the ignorant meddlers in star-spangled blinkers, the picky pedants anxious to display their barely acquired 'knowledge' and the determined ideologues who think their opinion is as good as anybody's and better than most. So I don't propose to edit the article any further -- which means that you and they can make as big a mess of it as you like in future. Good luck -- you might need it!-- PL ( talk) 10:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Why Lemesurier ran off like a scared dog with his tail between his legs:
https://storify.com/deltoidmachine/how-we-won-the-james-randi-dollar-1-000-000-parano — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.10.154.213 (
talk)
20:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Please may admin again look into the repeated use of spam and abuse on this page! The discussions are meant to revolve around the 'facts' of the article itself and not groundless opinions or insults.
Smithsurf (
talk)
22:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
And what about the abuse hurled on Nostradamus by PL? You tolerate it because the man has been dead for 500 years! To this clown PL, Nostradamus was not even a doctor let alone a PROPHET! Lemesurier believes Nostradamus was a complete fraud trying to gain fame and money by outright lies and deception.
PL should serve as a warning: anyone who tries to debunk someone who lived 500 years ago is a FOOL!
An example of the hate literature published on Nostradamus by "Lemesurier" (who changed his name to French to sell his books on the NOSTRADAMUS name!) http://prophetofprovence.blogspot.co.uk/
"Lemesurier's" view of Nostradamus in a nutshell: http://thenostradamuspoem.blogspot.ca/
And this debunker get to write pretty well the entire Wikipedia article on Nostradamus without challenge. And the fools allow him, bringing doom on them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.154.213 ( talk) 16:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
There is documented evidence which backs up PL's posts. As for nobody challenging him, maybe that is because his argument is too strong! PL does not think Nostradamus was a fraud, just that his method of prophesy involved history repeating itself and there is much evidence to support this. He is also not the first person to express this view. Therefore it is not 'his' theory and it came about as a result of previous academic research. Smithsurf ( talk) 00:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You will find that Wilson now agrees with PL and has done even since he became aware of the new evidence (The Janus hypothesis; N. being expelled from medical school, etc). Also Lemesurier has not changed his theme as you mention, in over an entire decade! Smithsurf ( talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I am fully aware of PL’s previous books and their content.My point is that since he became aware of a lot of the new evidence regarding Nostradamus, he has had good reason to change his mind. People are allowed to alter their opinions and PL’s current opinions have remained the same since 1999. Thus, his previous books which you criticize came before that! I think you would agree that this is a long time ago now. As for your assertion that he has been changing his mind since the 1980’s… hmm he didn't even publish a book on Nostradamus until 1993. Any views on other subjects from the 80’s would therefore be irrelevant anyhow.
You mention Wilson, but when did he disrespect PL’s more recent views? It’s true he criticised in part ‘The Nostradamus Encyclopedia’ but that was a book from ‘1997.’ His opinion on PL’s ‘2010’ book is: "Peter Lemesurier’s Nostradamus, Bibliomancer provides much long-needed commonsense concerning the many myths and misconceptions surrounding Nostradamus’ famous prophecies, together with properly authoritative English translations that have hitherto been lacking. In an age in which popular television documentaries too often peddle mindless rubbish concerning Nostradamus, Peter Lemesurier’s authoritative, no-nonsense approach to the subject is both welcome and opportune. I wish that I had had his book available to me eight years ago!" (Note that Wilson’s first published book on Nostradamus was in 2002, i.e. 8 years earlier). Also whilst Wilson is skeptical about some aspects of the paranormal, it was he who was criticized for his views on the ‘Shroud of Turin!’
I only mentioned the ‘expulsion’ because this one of the more recent discoveries regarding Nostradamus’s past (it is part of the new evidence I mentioned earlier). As for you not mentioning this, well there has been someone/troll on this Wiki-page writing abuse remarks off and on for a while now and their refusal to accept N’s expulsion from medical school has been a part of this. How do I know that this troll isn't you, when the comments you write are also highly abusive and ‘unsigned?’ I mean why be anonymous, what are you afraid of? If I am to take you seriously then, I would appreciate you not hiding behind abuse. As any responsible leader of a forum should do, I go where the evidence leads me. This is not hero worshiping! I cannot tell from your comments, whether you even believe that N. was expelled from medical school or not. On the one hand you imply he ‘was’ expelled, due to ‘dealing in eschatology on Christian writings while at tenure’ but then state later that none of the ‘three separate reasons’ for a possible expulsion were confirmed! I assume you have seen the actual handwritten expulsion, in the Montpellier Medical Faculty library? If yes, then why not discuss this in an academic manner, rather than resorting to insults? For example N. may have been an apothecary (as has been previously suggested) rather than a qualified doctor. Smithsurf ( talk) 23:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I deleted your comments, as they were damning and inappropriate! I have no issue with academic statements, but you also write deeply offensive statements! It could offend others and not just myself. You also personalize my comments and come across in an incredibly angry manner, there is no need for that. For example I requested (not demanded) that you come out of anonymity. This was not too attack you, as you assume, but I was hoping to engage you in a pleasant discussion, where the facts of Nostradamus can be shared. That is surely what this page is for? Anyhow, I shall respond to the rest of your message when I have more time. Smithsurf ( talk) 08:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I don’t doubt that Nostradamus had some medical skills, but I cannot find any evidence that he was officially sanctioned/licensed by any such organisation! Also your comments regarding PL supporting certain academics (I presume you mean anti-Christian ones) also favouring Sharia Law are simply untrue. Again where is the evidence? There is none.
Also I think you will find that PL has been arguing that Nostradamus was looking at past material and projecting this into the future, since 1999. He has presented his arguments slighting differently in the 2003 book (The Illustrated Prophecies) and then again in the 2010 Bibliomancer, but the premise of the argument has remained precisely the same. His 1999 book called ‘Nostradamus and Beyond,’ introduced the Janus Hypothesis right there and then! For example it gave such an alternate view to the Quatrain concerning ‘Mabus’ (C2 Q62). Some people at the time wondered whether Mabus was an Antichrist figure; however, consider that there was a painter who died in 1532 by the name of Jan Gosseart de Mabuse. His death occurred in the same year as Emperor Charles V conflict with the Ottoman Empire, which saw him assemble 80,000 troops in what was an exceptionally bloody conflict. There was a very bright comet that year too, just as the Quatrain predicted. See also from PL: "Jan Gossaert de MABUSE, the Flemish painter, died on October 1st 1532. In that same year the Emperor Charles V finally managed to push back the Muslim Ottoman hordes from before the very gates of Vienna - thus 'avenging' their previous 'laying waste of man and beast alike'. In the same year, too, there was a particularly bright comet - though not Halley's, which had returned the previous year".
The above clearly indicates that N. was discussing an event which had already happened, as all the details fit!
PL’s theory about the past repeating itself, is based on Roger Prevost et-al. It was ‘not’ something he simply made up. Also the likes of Bernard Chevignard (who is respected by John Hogue; a well-known strong believer in Nosty’s prophetic powers) and Elmer Gruber who is a confirmed believer in the paranormal and an expert in Nostradamus's writings, support the notion that Nostradamus used past information in this way, rather than being someone who actually ‘saw’ the future.
Your arguments about fate, as in determinism in terms of time are not automatically accepted to be true in the scientific community, it is part of an ongoing debate and even more controversial for many scientists is the subject of precognition.
As for Hawking et al, the concept of UFO’s existing is merely down to the fact that a universe of our size has a high probability of containing other intelligent life ‘somewhere’ as opposed to just here on Earth. The arguments for atheism are based again on a 'probability' that God does not exist.
You also seemed to state that European universities are substandard when compared to American ones and that PL’s books are poor scholarship. Well Oxford and Cambridge are renowned the world over including America! As PL is a graduate of the latter, I would strongly differ with you on this too.
As for not having brought anything new to the table, well this was never my intention for this discussion. I just wanted to highlight the newer evidence which certain fore-mentioned scholars have discovered and referred to. Smithsurf ( talk) 23:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
As Rjensen has chosen, without discussing it here first as required by the relevant rubric, to add a 'Further reading' section to the bibliography (which should really be called 'Sources', since that is what it is), kindly allow me to initiate discussion of it here...
Personally, I don't think a 'Further reading' section is needed, but if there is to be one, I agree that Gerson should be included (even though he is much more accurate about events since Nostradamus's death than before it), and possibly, at a pinch, Leoni too (even though he admits to never having seen an original edition). I would draw the line, though, at Cheetham and Roberts, who are so wildly inaccurate and ill-informed (compared with the reputable works listed) as to be a source of disinformation to readers, rather than information (my User Page refers). Certainly Roberts played no part (as originally proposed) in the preparation of the article. Including them would merely open the door to hundreds of other disreputable and highly speculative popular works.
So if readers want a 'Further reading' section consisting of only Gerson and Leoni, I'm prepared to go along with it. But if so I would also suggest renaming the Bibliography section 'Sources', lest there be any further confusion over the issue.
Don't expect me to do it, though!-- PL ( talk) 17:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I said I didn't propose to edit it. That's not the same as not proposing to comment on it. What others care to do about it is entirely up to them.-- PL ( talk) 18:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add link to Bloodletting wiki article under 'Works' section, 4th para, last sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.118.135.32 ( talk) 14:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the warnings from the External links section; given that the section has seen recent changes, and whatever discussion occurred seems to have been far in the past, I don't feel it enjoys any form of clear consensus anymore, and just glancing over it it's clear that the external links need more people editing it, not big warnings scaring them away. Additionally, I removed a link to a Yahoo group and a blog, which are definitely not appropriate externals link per WP:EL (since they're social networking sites and fansite by people who are not recognized authorities.) I also removed the links to www.propheties.it, which appears to be a fansite by someone who isn't a recognized authority in the field (and therefore also fails WP:EL. The entire external links section could probably stand to be overhauled, but those three sources definitely cannot be used. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Please don't delete blindly, and before the relevant points have been adequately discussed here!
MY antivirus has not the slightest problem with any of the propheties.it links -- though the 'translations' one was temporary blind (I have now corrected the address). Perhaps you should update your antivirus? Of your three sites supposedly reporting problems, the first one does nothing of the kind, and the other two are both trying to sell you software to correct the alleged 'problem' (conflict of interest!). Are you really so naive as to buy that? And why has the alleged 'problem only just occurred to you?
You ask for authoritative references to the propheties.it site attesting to its usefulness. You do realise, don't you, that most of the reputable printed sources were published BEFORE the invention of the Internet, and that relatively few of the online commentators on Nostradamus really want to know what the texts actually say -- which the site is virtually alone in revealing? However, since you ask, both Ian Wilson in his 'Nostradamus: The Man Behind the Prophecies' (the revised version of his 'Nostradamus: The Evidence' (Orion, 2002), Preface, page x) and Lemesurier, in his 'Nostradamus, Bibliomancer' (New page, 2010 -- Links to current websites, page 282, top and six subsequent entries) -- ie. virtually all the reputable English-language titles published since 2000, and both featured in our bibliography -- give priority to the site, in Wilson's case using the words 'See in particular...'
However, given that you seem to be determined to undermine the factual credentials of the article, you will no doubt wish to continue with your wrecking tactics (despite the fact that everybody else seems to have been perfectly satisfied with the external links for years), in which case the blame for doing so will rest entirely with you... -- PL ( talk) 09:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
PL is a renowned expert on Nostradamus and has worked very closely with Mario Gregorio. Mario's website (propheties.it) has the best collection of original Nostradamus manuscripts in the entire world! He has concentrated a great deal of time over a number of years, adding and investigating works related to this. Such important work is as credible as having written a number of books on Nostradamus. Given the amount of inaccuracies that exist in many books relating to Nostradamus anyhow, Mario has proven himself to be a 'highly' recognized authority on the subject! You can see further evidence of this in the NostradamusRG group on Yahoo. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/NostradamusRG/conversations/messages Smithsurf ( talk) 20:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Virtually the sole interest in Nostradamus is his writings. But for them, we probably wouldn't be discussing him. The only person in the history of the world who has collected all of them under one roof and presented every page of every known edition to the world in facsimile (that is to say, totally UNedited) is Mario Gregorio, who has spent literally a fortune on the task over the years. Not one of the linked pages could be described as a 'personal' page, and their sales information is minimal -- no more than the 'Sacred Books' site that you were trying to foist on us earlier, whose texts are heavily edited from beginning to end, to the point where it could be said that they aren't by Nostradamus at all. Whether Gregorio is a 'notable person' as per Wikipedia:Notability_(people) is irrelevant, given that his pages aren't biographical sites in the sense of the rubric (why do people keep referring to bits of the rubric out of context, I wonder, determinedly seeing only the bits they want to see?): as the same site puts it, 'Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.' So is his 'amateur' status, since the texts themselves, being direct facsimiles, carry their own authority. The fact that few books acknowledge what they have freely borrowed from him is simply a function of the fact that there is no copyright in photocopies, and therefore no need to acknowledge them. What you seem intent on denying readers is access to the whole of Nostradamus's actual writings as printed, which are an essential adjunct to any article about him. It would be crass in the extreme to deny readers access to this unique resource (which is currently being debugged, incidentally) on the grounds of misguided, one-eyed Wikipedia pedantry. As Wikipedia:Notability_(people) puts it, common sense needs to be applied. NO other site provides this information. -- PL ( talk) 08:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Gregorio is the only recognised online authority, as far as the texts are concerned (did you even bother to open up all his files? how can a facsimile not be accurate?) -- even if you, being ignorant of the subject, are unaware of the fact -- and nobody is ignoring WP:ELNO: quite the contrary. As I reminded you, WP:ELNO states: 'Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.' This is precisely the case with Gregorio. (It also insists on editors exercising common sense, by the way!) Moreover, you seem particularly keen on the term 'Fansite': Gregorio's site is a specialist site devoted to the subject of the article. If all such sites are to be dismissed as 'fansites' we might as well all pack up and go home! Goodbye common sense! The 'warning' was put there by people trying to compensate for their insistence on calling the Sources list, 'Bibliography'. I will change it back again. Meanwhile, for you to complain about lack of 'consensus' on the Talk page, when your sole reason for removing it was to allow you to override its insistence on obtaining consensus on the Talk page, is plainly self-contradictory, not to say ludicrous. Let's face it, almost the sole reason for your intervention was to allow you to foist on us a disreputable site (= 'fansite'?) whose invalidity you, as a non-specialist, were totally unaware of. Why don't you go somewhere else and exercise your destructive skills on an article whose subject you know something about, rather than on a Featured Article of long standing?-- PL ( talk) 09:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
PS I see that you have now made umpteen minor amendments to the wording. While none of them seem objectionable in themselves, there are always hundreds of possible alternative expressions, and no reason to insist on one rather than the other. If you really think that any of them are particularly important, have the courtesy to do what was suggested all along, and float them here first, along with your other more major changes, preferably one at a time, as you are so keen on 'consensus'. That's what this Talk page is for. See WP:CONSENSUS -- 'When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.'-- PL ( talk) 10:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Then you'd better get on with it, as I've now withdrawn my research. I have better things to do with my life than fight you and other ill-informed, legalistic Wikipedants for the right to publish it in Wikipedia. It has become impossible to maintain my reputation as a reliable contributor with (as it happens) unique knowledge of the subject in the anglophone sphere, or that of my academic colleagues as reliable sources, in the face of such ignorant harassment. I have left two or three sentences that were not mine. Enjoy yourself -- and do take care, as one who knows next to nothing about the subject, not to make too big a fool of yourself! -- PL ( talk) 09:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Now that the last lock has run out, isn't it time that a new lock was installed to protect the article against the vandals who have started to come out of the woodwork again? -- PL ( talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The person itself and also the name of Adolf Hitler hyperlinked is inapropriate, I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VLADIMIR Skokan ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Not meaning to pry excessively, isn't the point here to allow edits, then revert if it's vandalism? You must have had vandalism problems, but I'd have to protest locking something that needs some fleshing-out...but it is a good entry as written. 75.21.159.119 ( talk) 15:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty making sense of certain passages in this section.
Specifically, the section starts by saying that there is a range of literature, from the highly sceptical, academic debunkers to the "true believers". However it then goes on to say:
Essentially I think the section needs to be much better structured and worded in order to make it clear which group of writers is being talked about at any given time.
Also, I think the section title is not terribly helpful, as it, to some extent, gives equal credibility to the "true believer's" and the academic/sceptic's viewpoints, and by Wikipedia's standards of reliability and credibility, the "true believer" stance has no credibility.
I know I'm very much coming to this with my own POV, i.e. that I don't believe that Nostradamus predicted a thing and that any belief to the contrary is mere superstition, so I wanted to flag these thoughts up before having a crack at a reworking of the section. I'm also aware that I don't have access to any of the literature from the references (other than what's available online) so was concerned that I might misrepresent a source.
Anyone have any thoughts before I get stuck in? Arthur Holland ( talk) 15:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
I've added a photograph to the page (which I took myself from outside his St Remy home) which shows the officially recorded date of birth. This is also the date that is recored on his tomb, so I am not sure why the article is so ambivalent in recording two dates, the second of which does not seem to get much mainstream attention. Would it not be better for this article to give the birth date that is recorded on his birth place and tomb, with a footnote to explain that a different date has been proposed by Patrice Cunard, with a link that goes to his page. His argument appears to be that the record of his length of life may not be accurate, which -if true - would suggest a different date of birth. Has this argument been reproduced in any mainstream historical sources? Tento2 ( talk) 13:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
It's fine to acknowledge that the birthdate is in the Julian Calendar, because that was, as PL points out, the only one in use when he was born, and many readers are not familiar with the history of calendars. However, it is pointless and misleading to convert this to 24 December in the Gregorian Calendar. For starters, the Gregorian did not commence until 15 October 1582. Secondly, it did not apply retrospectively (4 October Julian was immediately followed by 15 October Gregorian, and earlier dates were not converted). It's possible to play a mental game and work out what some earlier date would have been in the Gregorian calendar had the Gregorian calendar been in application back then - but it wasn't. Scientists sometimes use the proleptic Gregorian calendar for their arcane purposes, but historians should never do so. This is no different from working out what Queen Victoria's age would be today had she not died in 1901. Trivial, meaningless and unencyclopedic. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Why do you find it pointless? I find your revert pointless *sigh*. -- Shandris the azylean 19:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Michel Nostredame gives the formala hint in a public epistle: Que toutes ces figures ∫ont iu∫temêt adaptees par les diuines lettres aux cho∫es cele∫tes vi∫ibles, c'est à sçavoir, par Saturne , Iupiter , & Mars ,[241] & les autres conioincts [...] first published about 1558 A.D. Nostradamus tells us he uses visual astrology ('cele∫tes vi∫ibles,' lit. visible universe), not tropical astrology, for his poems.
http://bookoflife.org/gamma/OI/oi_vii.i.f.htm this is a the major war codex from Nostradamus. You or anyone in the world can now predict any large game shifting war in history forward and backward based soley upon nostradamus' own claim in his public writings. Just because one gets a masters or studies N for 30+ years does not nor will it ever imply they have intelligence.
Nostradamus did not need to create houses and charts and stuff as this is astronomical, as he has pointed out ('cele∫tes vi∫ibles) , ref. to Aussie visable modern astrologer, Bernadette Brady for bring back this concept.
If you have not been able to figure this out you need to get out of Nostradamus all together, otherwise you work for Satan's Army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.25 ( talk) 21:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Currently, in the section "Origins of The Prophecies", there is a section that reads:
I changed this to have the actual title in text and moved the picture to the right [1]. However, this change was reverted - without comment - by PL [2]. Using a picture to stand in for article text is a a very bad idea for a number of reasons: 1) It breaks the flow of the text itself. People are not accustomed to reading article pictures as part of the article text itself. 2) It breaks accessibility for those using screen reading software that can't read the text in the picture. For those users, the sentence would make no sense at all. 3) It breaks the sentence for those who, for whatever reason, are reading the page without images. 4) The text in the picture is not searchable. 5) It is confusing in general, especially considering that the picture has a caption, which I gather is not supposed to be read as part of the article text, only the picture's content. Also, it is explicitly against the the manual of style. Per WP:BRD, I'd like to open a discussion on why anyone would think this is preferable. Niamh ( talk) 12:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Can an admin please step in and protect this page? It's been targeted with the same pro wrestling-related vandalism repeatedly today. Damon Killian ( talk) 01:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Hy Celestra, I try to fulfill all your requests...
Ya llegaron demasiado lejos y ahora les toca dar cuenta Gloriamacia ( talk) 16:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Be warned -- a troll is on the loose with a very angry bee in his bonnet, attacking both the article and myself. Please block his efforts (see the attacks on me on the Discussion board) and re-protect the article. Until this has been done I am withdrawing my support for the article... -- PL ( talk) 08:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The Bibliography section contains external links to Google Books. This is sort of a bad idea for a couple reasons: Google Books is a commercial book seller even if these are "free" PD scans they have links to buy stuff; the quality of GB scans is generally poor; many/most of the books are available at non-profit scanning libraries such as Internet Archive which have higher quality scans; GB URLs often change or disappear, Internet Archive URLs are stable. -- Green C 04:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Nostradamus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
".... He was expelled shortly afterwards by the university's procurator, Guillaume Rondelet, when it was discovered that he had been an apothecary, a "manual trade" expressly banned by the university statutes,[12] and had been slandering doctors.[13] The expulsion document (BIU Montpellier, Register S 2 folio 87) still exists in the faculty library.[14] However, some of his publishers and correspondents would later call him "Doctor". After his expulsion, Nostredame continued working, presumably still as an apothecary, and became famous for creating a "rose pill" that supposedly protected against the plague.[15] ...."
The above paragraph is not the complete truth because Nostradamus after being expelled in date 3 octobre 1529 received the help of professor Antoine Romier and after 20 days from the expulsion he obtained to be reinscribed...
The source of the historical records is : "Seconde inscription retrouvée de Michel de Nostredame, en date du 23 octobre 1529, conservée à la Bibliothèque Interuniversitaire de Montpellier, registre S 19, f° 105 v : Nostradamus est inscrit dans le Livre du Procurateur (Liber procuratoris)."
Related info at the web page http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html and http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html</ref>
So i suggest the following new paragraph:
".... He was expelled shortly afterwards by the university's procurator, Guillaume Rondelet, when it was accused to have been an apothecary, a "manual trade" expressly banned by the university statutes,[12] and had been slandering doctors.[13] The expulsion document (BIU Montpellier, Register S 2 folio 87) still exists in the faculty library.[14] However, 20 days later, thanks to the help of professor Antoine Romier he obtained to be re-inscibed in the "Liber procuratoris" (BIU Montpellier, Register S 19 folio 105) and so he had the possibility to complete his study and become a Medical Doctor. ...."
Orsini Guglielmo ( talk) 18:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Orsini Guglielmo
Question: Please only show a small amount of unchanged text so that one doesn't have to search for the changes. The first small change, changing 'discovered' to 'accused', results in an ungrammatical sentence. Can you explain the reasoning for this change. The new final sentence is also not grammatical but I am concerned about the content as well. I do not speak French, and google translate's attempt includes nothing which supports the change, but that could be google. Could you expand on what it is in the source which supports this change? Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 05:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Hy Celestra, I trimmed the above paragraphs under discussion and I post here my answers to your notes.
1) Nostradamus was expelled because he was accused to be involved in apothecary works, but we have no historical evidence about the correctness of the charge, so I personally think that is more suited the word 'Accused' than "discovered"
2) The French text reported above gives detailed evidence that the Universitary Library of Montpellier holds the proof about the Nostradamus re-inscription, precisely in the register "S 19", sheet 105 Related info at the web page http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html at the paragraph 'Le doctorat en médecine (1529 - 1933)' -second image-
3) You say ':The last sentence should be omitted, as the 'second inscription' mentioned (scratched out by Rondelet when expelling him) states...' but the 'scratched out' inscription isn't the 'second inscription' but instead is the 'first' in date 3 octobre 1529. Related info at the web page http://cura.free.fr/xxx/26benaz4.html at the paragraph 'Le doctorat en médecine (1529 - 1933)' -first image-
4) I don't have a copy of the book that you mention: Lemesurier - 'Nostradamus Bibliomancer' so I can only argue basing myself on the images and data shown on the linked web pages...
My English is not perfect so if the suggested changes are approved I kindly ask your help to pubblish correct sentences.....
A big 'Ciao' from Italy
Guglielmo
Celestra I examined the extract you posted and I now understand the mention about the misunderstanded date... ...but some discrepancy still remains:
1) Try a search in Google "images" for the character "François Rabelais" and you will see that he wears the same hat as did Nostradamus in many historical paintings and book covers. I absolutely can't believe that on those times somebody could wear such a distinguishing hat without having a proper degree ! Today somebody can also publicly wear Papal dresses, but in the Nostradamus age things were for sure different.
2) How could he work as a doctor at the royal court of France and perhaps in some other, together with certified and high level doctors, without having a proper degree ?
3) How could he had the freedom to fight the plague giving medical help and prescribing drugs in regions and towns where, for sure, other official physicians were on duty ?
4) The extract you posted says "However, even before his lack of a valid First Degree diploma could be officially discovered...." so according to the author Nostradamus was also lacking of a "First Degree diploma" ! And he goes so easily without any hesitation to ask to be inscribed in the "liber scolasticorum" asking and obtaining also the protection of Antoine Romier ?!
5) The extract you posted says "And so Rondelet was ordered to strike him off again...." ...."again" ? He wasn't striked two times !
Resuming all I've the impression that despite many historical and tangible proofs about his role as doctor or physician, is everything deleted upon the affirmations presented in the book "Lemesurier - Nostradamus Bibliomancer". Moreover the term "bibliomancer" refers to individuals that give predictions thru the opening of books at random pages and according to the text present form the prediction.... that title is absolutely misleading and false when tied to Nostradamus...
At least, considering the present findings, I think that further investigation is needed...
If you agree I'm fully available to cooperate with you to find the truth.
Regards Guglielmo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.253.138.212 ( talk) 15:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Celestra, I read the initial part of the Lemeuriers' book and here are my last comments and observations:
Lemesurier in it's book writes : "...he (Nostradamus) was visited in 1564, in the course of a celebrated royal progress through the country, by the notoriously superstitious queen and her teenage son, the new King Charles IX, accompanied by a vast retinue. He was then summoned to attend them again in Arles, where he was reportedly honored by being made Privy Councillor and Physician in Ordinary to the King."
Despite this FACT Lemesurier asserts that Michel de Nostredame wasn't a physician... it's belivable that a queen, and mother too, puts his son in the hands of an "apothecary" raised at the level of Physician only "ad honorem" ? In the Bibliography is cited Robert Benazra and is known that he asserts that Michel de Nostredame finally was able to get the physician degree...
About the quatrain I.35 the Lemesurier says: "...with "d'or" simply the result of the compositor's mishearing of dehors ["outside," "separate"')...
"d'or" means only and simply "of gold", "the cage of gold" is simply the golden helm used by Henry II, that's an evident proof that the author is absolutely incompetent...
But I don't insist anymore, to me the PROOFS are enaf, and this is my last post. Any writer can affirm what he prefers, but on my point of wiev a official biography pubblished by world leading online service like Wikipedia has to present only facts supported by many official and reilable sources, so the "fact" that Nostradamus was only an apotechary has at least to be converted in "there are different opinions about the fact that he get the degree of physician..."
Thanks anyway for the time you dedicated to me
Regards
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. Not done per
Older and ... well older. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
23:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)3O Response: I've declined the request for a third opinion made at WP:3O because too many editors are already involved. Stfg ( talk) 11:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, after nearly ten years largely running this article (most of which I originally wrote), I've finally had enough of the trolls, the ignorant meddlers in star-spangled blinkers, the picky pedants anxious to display their barely acquired 'knowledge' and the determined ideologues who think their opinion is as good as anybody's and better than most. So I don't propose to edit the article any further -- which means that you and they can make as big a mess of it as you like in future. Good luck -- you might need it!-- PL ( talk) 10:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Why Lemesurier ran off like a scared dog with his tail between his legs:
https://storify.com/deltoidmachine/how-we-won-the-james-randi-dollar-1-000-000-parano — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.10.154.213 (
talk)
20:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Please may admin again look into the repeated use of spam and abuse on this page! The discussions are meant to revolve around the 'facts' of the article itself and not groundless opinions or insults.
Smithsurf (
talk)
22:59, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
And what about the abuse hurled on Nostradamus by PL? You tolerate it because the man has been dead for 500 years! To this clown PL, Nostradamus was not even a doctor let alone a PROPHET! Lemesurier believes Nostradamus was a complete fraud trying to gain fame and money by outright lies and deception.
PL should serve as a warning: anyone who tries to debunk someone who lived 500 years ago is a FOOL!
An example of the hate literature published on Nostradamus by "Lemesurier" (who changed his name to French to sell his books on the NOSTRADAMUS name!) http://prophetofprovence.blogspot.co.uk/
"Lemesurier's" view of Nostradamus in a nutshell: http://thenostradamuspoem.blogspot.ca/
And this debunker get to write pretty well the entire Wikipedia article on Nostradamus without challenge. And the fools allow him, bringing doom on them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.10.154.213 ( talk) 16:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
There is documented evidence which backs up PL's posts. As for nobody challenging him, maybe that is because his argument is too strong! PL does not think Nostradamus was a fraud, just that his method of prophesy involved history repeating itself and there is much evidence to support this. He is also not the first person to express this view. Therefore it is not 'his' theory and it came about as a result of previous academic research. Smithsurf ( talk) 00:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
You will find that Wilson now agrees with PL and has done even since he became aware of the new evidence (The Janus hypothesis; N. being expelled from medical school, etc). Also Lemesurier has not changed his theme as you mention, in over an entire decade! Smithsurf ( talk) 00:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I am fully aware of PL’s previous books and their content.My point is that since he became aware of a lot of the new evidence regarding Nostradamus, he has had good reason to change his mind. People are allowed to alter their opinions and PL’s current opinions have remained the same since 1999. Thus, his previous books which you criticize came before that! I think you would agree that this is a long time ago now. As for your assertion that he has been changing his mind since the 1980’s… hmm he didn't even publish a book on Nostradamus until 1993. Any views on other subjects from the 80’s would therefore be irrelevant anyhow.
You mention Wilson, but when did he disrespect PL’s more recent views? It’s true he criticised in part ‘The Nostradamus Encyclopedia’ but that was a book from ‘1997.’ His opinion on PL’s ‘2010’ book is: "Peter Lemesurier’s Nostradamus, Bibliomancer provides much long-needed commonsense concerning the many myths and misconceptions surrounding Nostradamus’ famous prophecies, together with properly authoritative English translations that have hitherto been lacking. In an age in which popular television documentaries too often peddle mindless rubbish concerning Nostradamus, Peter Lemesurier’s authoritative, no-nonsense approach to the subject is both welcome and opportune. I wish that I had had his book available to me eight years ago!" (Note that Wilson’s first published book on Nostradamus was in 2002, i.e. 8 years earlier). Also whilst Wilson is skeptical about some aspects of the paranormal, it was he who was criticized for his views on the ‘Shroud of Turin!’
I only mentioned the ‘expulsion’ because this one of the more recent discoveries regarding Nostradamus’s past (it is part of the new evidence I mentioned earlier). As for you not mentioning this, well there has been someone/troll on this Wiki-page writing abuse remarks off and on for a while now and their refusal to accept N’s expulsion from medical school has been a part of this. How do I know that this troll isn't you, when the comments you write are also highly abusive and ‘unsigned?’ I mean why be anonymous, what are you afraid of? If I am to take you seriously then, I would appreciate you not hiding behind abuse. As any responsible leader of a forum should do, I go where the evidence leads me. This is not hero worshiping! I cannot tell from your comments, whether you even believe that N. was expelled from medical school or not. On the one hand you imply he ‘was’ expelled, due to ‘dealing in eschatology on Christian writings while at tenure’ but then state later that none of the ‘three separate reasons’ for a possible expulsion were confirmed! I assume you have seen the actual handwritten expulsion, in the Montpellier Medical Faculty library? If yes, then why not discuss this in an academic manner, rather than resorting to insults? For example N. may have been an apothecary (as has been previously suggested) rather than a qualified doctor. Smithsurf ( talk) 23:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I deleted your comments, as they were damning and inappropriate! I have no issue with academic statements, but you also write deeply offensive statements! It could offend others and not just myself. You also personalize my comments and come across in an incredibly angry manner, there is no need for that. For example I requested (not demanded) that you come out of anonymity. This was not too attack you, as you assume, but I was hoping to engage you in a pleasant discussion, where the facts of Nostradamus can be shared. That is surely what this page is for? Anyhow, I shall respond to the rest of your message when I have more time. Smithsurf ( talk) 08:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I don’t doubt that Nostradamus had some medical skills, but I cannot find any evidence that he was officially sanctioned/licensed by any such organisation! Also your comments regarding PL supporting certain academics (I presume you mean anti-Christian ones) also favouring Sharia Law are simply untrue. Again where is the evidence? There is none.
Also I think you will find that PL has been arguing that Nostradamus was looking at past material and projecting this into the future, since 1999. He has presented his arguments slighting differently in the 2003 book (The Illustrated Prophecies) and then again in the 2010 Bibliomancer, but the premise of the argument has remained precisely the same. His 1999 book called ‘Nostradamus and Beyond,’ introduced the Janus Hypothesis right there and then! For example it gave such an alternate view to the Quatrain concerning ‘Mabus’ (C2 Q62). Some people at the time wondered whether Mabus was an Antichrist figure; however, consider that there was a painter who died in 1532 by the name of Jan Gosseart de Mabuse. His death occurred in the same year as Emperor Charles V conflict with the Ottoman Empire, which saw him assemble 80,000 troops in what was an exceptionally bloody conflict. There was a very bright comet that year too, just as the Quatrain predicted. See also from PL: "Jan Gossaert de MABUSE, the Flemish painter, died on October 1st 1532. In that same year the Emperor Charles V finally managed to push back the Muslim Ottoman hordes from before the very gates of Vienna - thus 'avenging' their previous 'laying waste of man and beast alike'. In the same year, too, there was a particularly bright comet - though not Halley's, which had returned the previous year".
The above clearly indicates that N. was discussing an event which had already happened, as all the details fit!
PL’s theory about the past repeating itself, is based on Roger Prevost et-al. It was ‘not’ something he simply made up. Also the likes of Bernard Chevignard (who is respected by John Hogue; a well-known strong believer in Nosty’s prophetic powers) and Elmer Gruber who is a confirmed believer in the paranormal and an expert in Nostradamus's writings, support the notion that Nostradamus used past information in this way, rather than being someone who actually ‘saw’ the future.
Your arguments about fate, as in determinism in terms of time are not automatically accepted to be true in the scientific community, it is part of an ongoing debate and even more controversial for many scientists is the subject of precognition.
As for Hawking et al, the concept of UFO’s existing is merely down to the fact that a universe of our size has a high probability of containing other intelligent life ‘somewhere’ as opposed to just here on Earth. The arguments for atheism are based again on a 'probability' that God does not exist.
You also seemed to state that European universities are substandard when compared to American ones and that PL’s books are poor scholarship. Well Oxford and Cambridge are renowned the world over including America! As PL is a graduate of the latter, I would strongly differ with you on this too.
As for not having brought anything new to the table, well this was never my intention for this discussion. I just wanted to highlight the newer evidence which certain fore-mentioned scholars have discovered and referred to. Smithsurf ( talk) 23:55, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
As Rjensen has chosen, without discussing it here first as required by the relevant rubric, to add a 'Further reading' section to the bibliography (which should really be called 'Sources', since that is what it is), kindly allow me to initiate discussion of it here...
Personally, I don't think a 'Further reading' section is needed, but if there is to be one, I agree that Gerson should be included (even though he is much more accurate about events since Nostradamus's death than before it), and possibly, at a pinch, Leoni too (even though he admits to never having seen an original edition). I would draw the line, though, at Cheetham and Roberts, who are so wildly inaccurate and ill-informed (compared with the reputable works listed) as to be a source of disinformation to readers, rather than information (my User Page refers). Certainly Roberts played no part (as originally proposed) in the preparation of the article. Including them would merely open the door to hundreds of other disreputable and highly speculative popular works.
So if readers want a 'Further reading' section consisting of only Gerson and Leoni, I'm prepared to go along with it. But if so I would also suggest renaming the Bibliography section 'Sources', lest there be any further confusion over the issue.
Don't expect me to do it, though!-- PL ( talk) 17:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I said I didn't propose to edit it. That's not the same as not proposing to comment on it. What others care to do about it is entirely up to them.-- PL ( talk) 18:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Please add link to Bloodletting wiki article under 'Works' section, 4th para, last sentence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.118.135.32 ( talk) 14:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the warnings from the External links section; given that the section has seen recent changes, and whatever discussion occurred seems to have been far in the past, I don't feel it enjoys any form of clear consensus anymore, and just glancing over it it's clear that the external links need more people editing it, not big warnings scaring them away. Additionally, I removed a link to a Yahoo group and a blog, which are definitely not appropriate externals link per WP:EL (since they're social networking sites and fansite by people who are not recognized authorities.) I also removed the links to www.propheties.it, which appears to be a fansite by someone who isn't a recognized authority in the field (and therefore also fails WP:EL. The entire external links section could probably stand to be overhauled, but those three sources definitely cannot be used. -- Aquillion ( talk) 08:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Please don't delete blindly, and before the relevant points have been adequately discussed here!
MY antivirus has not the slightest problem with any of the propheties.it links -- though the 'translations' one was temporary blind (I have now corrected the address). Perhaps you should update your antivirus? Of your three sites supposedly reporting problems, the first one does nothing of the kind, and the other two are both trying to sell you software to correct the alleged 'problem' (conflict of interest!). Are you really so naive as to buy that? And why has the alleged 'problem only just occurred to you?
You ask for authoritative references to the propheties.it site attesting to its usefulness. You do realise, don't you, that most of the reputable printed sources were published BEFORE the invention of the Internet, and that relatively few of the online commentators on Nostradamus really want to know what the texts actually say -- which the site is virtually alone in revealing? However, since you ask, both Ian Wilson in his 'Nostradamus: The Man Behind the Prophecies' (the revised version of his 'Nostradamus: The Evidence' (Orion, 2002), Preface, page x) and Lemesurier, in his 'Nostradamus, Bibliomancer' (New page, 2010 -- Links to current websites, page 282, top and six subsequent entries) -- ie. virtually all the reputable English-language titles published since 2000, and both featured in our bibliography -- give priority to the site, in Wilson's case using the words 'See in particular...'
However, given that you seem to be determined to undermine the factual credentials of the article, you will no doubt wish to continue with your wrecking tactics (despite the fact that everybody else seems to have been perfectly satisfied with the external links for years), in which case the blame for doing so will rest entirely with you... -- PL ( talk) 09:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
PL is a renowned expert on Nostradamus and has worked very closely with Mario Gregorio. Mario's website (propheties.it) has the best collection of original Nostradamus manuscripts in the entire world! He has concentrated a great deal of time over a number of years, adding and investigating works related to this. Such important work is as credible as having written a number of books on Nostradamus. Given the amount of inaccuracies that exist in many books relating to Nostradamus anyhow, Mario has proven himself to be a 'highly' recognized authority on the subject! You can see further evidence of this in the NostradamusRG group on Yahoo. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/NostradamusRG/conversations/messages Smithsurf ( talk) 20:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Virtually the sole interest in Nostradamus is his writings. But for them, we probably wouldn't be discussing him. The only person in the history of the world who has collected all of them under one roof and presented every page of every known edition to the world in facsimile (that is to say, totally UNedited) is Mario Gregorio, who has spent literally a fortune on the task over the years. Not one of the linked pages could be described as a 'personal' page, and their sales information is minimal -- no more than the 'Sacred Books' site that you were trying to foist on us earlier, whose texts are heavily edited from beginning to end, to the point where it could be said that they aren't by Nostradamus at all. Whether Gregorio is a 'notable person' as per Wikipedia:Notability_(people) is irrelevant, given that his pages aren't biographical sites in the sense of the rubric (why do people keep referring to bits of the rubric out of context, I wonder, determinedly seeing only the bits they want to see?): as the same site puts it, 'Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.' So is his 'amateur' status, since the texts themselves, being direct facsimiles, carry their own authority. The fact that few books acknowledge what they have freely borrowed from him is simply a function of the fact that there is no copyright in photocopies, and therefore no need to acknowledge them. What you seem intent on denying readers is access to the whole of Nostradamus's actual writings as printed, which are an essential adjunct to any article about him. It would be crass in the extreme to deny readers access to this unique resource (which is currently being debugged, incidentally) on the grounds of misguided, one-eyed Wikipedia pedantry. As Wikipedia:Notability_(people) puts it, common sense needs to be applied. NO other site provides this information. -- PL ( talk) 08:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Gregorio is the only recognised online authority, as far as the texts are concerned (did you even bother to open up all his files? how can a facsimile not be accurate?) -- even if you, being ignorant of the subject, are unaware of the fact -- and nobody is ignoring WP:ELNO: quite the contrary. As I reminded you, WP:ELNO states: 'Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources.' This is precisely the case with Gregorio. (It also insists on editors exercising common sense, by the way!) Moreover, you seem particularly keen on the term 'Fansite': Gregorio's site is a specialist site devoted to the subject of the article. If all such sites are to be dismissed as 'fansites' we might as well all pack up and go home! Goodbye common sense! The 'warning' was put there by people trying to compensate for their insistence on calling the Sources list, 'Bibliography'. I will change it back again. Meanwhile, for you to complain about lack of 'consensus' on the Talk page, when your sole reason for removing it was to allow you to override its insistence on obtaining consensus on the Talk page, is plainly self-contradictory, not to say ludicrous. Let's face it, almost the sole reason for your intervention was to allow you to foist on us a disreputable site (= 'fansite'?) whose invalidity you, as a non-specialist, were totally unaware of. Why don't you go somewhere else and exercise your destructive skills on an article whose subject you know something about, rather than on a Featured Article of long standing?-- PL ( talk) 09:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
PS I see that you have now made umpteen minor amendments to the wording. While none of them seem objectionable in themselves, there are always hundreds of possible alternative expressions, and no reason to insist on one rather than the other. If you really think that any of them are particularly important, have the courtesy to do what was suggested all along, and float them here first, along with your other more major changes, preferably one at a time, as you are so keen on 'consensus'. That's what this Talk page is for. See WP:CONSENSUS -- 'When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution.'-- PL ( talk) 10:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Then you'd better get on with it, as I've now withdrawn my research. I have better things to do with my life than fight you and other ill-informed, legalistic Wikipedants for the right to publish it in Wikipedia. It has become impossible to maintain my reputation as a reliable contributor with (as it happens) unique knowledge of the subject in the anglophone sphere, or that of my academic colleagues as reliable sources, in the face of such ignorant harassment. I have left two or three sentences that were not mine. Enjoy yourself -- and do take care, as one who knows next to nothing about the subject, not to make too big a fool of yourself! -- PL ( talk) 09:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)