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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Oh, what the heck. I'm going to unprotect the article and see what happens - it's been protected for a couple weeks, which is ridiculous. - DavidWBrooks 18:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've done what I can. There are probably a few technical sillies. Hopefully somebody will correct them. Does anybody object to removing the NPOV tag? -- PL
:::Which is his real name, Jaume or Jaumes? If the former, the apostrophe is misplace: "..Jaume de Nostredame, who was also a prosperous home-grown notary. The latter's family had originally been Jewish, but Jaumes'..."
Jim62sch
16:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I restored the former 'Skepticism' section, then re-titled it. -- PL 17:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is so huge - what about if I move most of the "misquotes and hoaxes" to a separate article, leaving a paragraph or so summation and a link to the article? - DavidWBrooks 15:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
->Yes I agree, since I built the Category:Nostradamus, we could easily write a page "Nostradamus Hoaxes" about everything that is 100% surely not written by Nostradamus, and maybe has a known hoaxing author.
I also agree that a very clear skeptical's SECTION is really needed. We could also build a page about the history, achievements and errors of the Nostradamus interpreters, I would call Gabriele F. for this work.
About Flat Earth... I bought the Scientific American Mag. 1/2006, and is told that in order to explain mathematically how gravity "pulls down" objects is to assume in the equations a FLAT UNIVERSE that makes an olographic projection (like that of those silver stickers), and only our mind and our limited understanding of the real gives us the 3D feeling. I can remember that blind people who see for the first time, see all the objects around inside their eye !
-- Giancarlo Rossi 16:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to do that, perhaps a suitable title would be 'Nostradamus: contentious issues'? That would hopefully keep all the nonsense out of the main article as far as possible. Then people could use it to discuss whether he really was or was not a doctor, an astrologer and/or a prophet, whether he could foresee the future, whether it is really possible to arrive at any kind of future scenario from his predictions and - yes - all the various misquotes and hoaxes. Possibly the 'Skepticism' section could be included, too (now retitled)?
I wouldn't be too optimistic about ever being able to settle on any very clear conclusions, though! There would have to be some pretty strict rules about POV, and the best anybody could do would be to summarise the two sides of each issue. -- PL 17:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
So how about setting up a separate 'Nostradamus: contentious issues' article with those two sections to kick it off, then? Anybody feeling creative? David? -- PL 10:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Can we develop this a bit further? "A good demonstration of this flexible predicting is to take lyrics written by modern songwriters (e.g., Bob Dylan) and show that they are equally "prophetic"." Jim62sch 17:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Are these intended as footnotes, or references for the sections? "(Brind,Amour [1], Prevost, Gruber, Lemesurier [2] and [3])" Jim62sch 17:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be Jean? "Jehan (c.1507-77),"
Jim62sch
19:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Re 'what are claimed to be prophecies' in the Intro, mightn't this be a bit too sneering, and apt to provoke the nutters? I mean, they are prophecies, whether correct or not! -- PL 10:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Re book title under Methods, yes, Jim, I would suggest retaining the layout, as it exposes the fact that the actual title was Les Propheties, not necessarily Les propheties de... --
PL
10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, wasn't too sure. Splendid, in that case. If you really wanted to, I suppose you could probably copy in an *actual* facsimile of the 1555 Albi title page from one of the facsimile sites, if you can find one. -- PL 16:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Throughout the article, both Nostredame and Nostradamus are used, and the usage is only consistent within each section. It would be best to decide on a specific usage, or to decide that Nostredame will be used in discussing his life, education, marriage, etc, and Nostradamus when discussing the prophesy bit. Jim62sch 19:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I was bold, I used Nostredame up to the point where he Latinized the name. Jim62sch 19:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
You were absolutely correct to do so, Jim. (I think we could overlook the point that all his canal work occurred after the change!!) -- PL 10:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It makes absolutely NO SENSE that you people keep deleting "Category:Astrologers" from this page -- he may have indeed been ridiculed by the astrologers of his day (source?), but that doesn't change the fact that he was an astrologer and thus obviously belongs in said category -- just glance through his quatrains for 5 seconds and you start noticing references to "Mars in Leo" or "Jupiter in Aries."
Sometimes you Wiki-people make no sense -- SURE, go ahead and leave the category off this page...yes, let us toss all logic and FACTS out-the-window just to fit in with your personal pet-views while you whitewash the truth on any given subject. But the fact is that when Nostradamus wrote his prophecies they were largely (if not completely) based on ASTROLOGY -- if that doesn't qualify him as an astrologer then I swear to God(s) dogs will start to fly tomorrow morning...please be reasonable with this and stop being a Wikifascist. G'day. -- 152.163.100.196 06:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
IMHO should remain, in the "See Also" part, because Nostradamus seems to give some hints about "De Labore Solis", in the quatrain where he wrotes Pol Man Sol... maybe telling that He was a citizen from Poland. Lands then known by ancient roman (Ovidio) as "Bastarnia". -- 87.10.217.152 12:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, he's at it again, folks! He doesn't learn, does he? More dubious stuff about astrology. More rubbishing of books that he hasn't even read (it's just his usual bluster and pretence, of course). And as for deleting whole chunks of carefully researched material from the article without any discussion here first, simply because he doesn't like it – how's that for sheer ignorance and arrogance, to say nothing of academic vandalism?
Ah well, no more Mr Nice Guy!... -- PL 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Time to clear this page and archive it, David? I gather that Theo won't be around to fill it up for a bit... -- PL 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust%2C_Part_1 (maybe it can give some solemnity to the article) - Giancarlo Rossi 20:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, lots of new links done. Not Goethe, though! :)
One or two of them don't manage to come up with the actual 'external link' symbol: not too sure why. -- PL 10:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I notice this article is using a lot of alternative formatting. If no-one objects, I'd like to change it.
Just so you know: The manual of style objects to the use of boldface outside of the first line of text. It also suggests that link contructions such as "..his tomb remains to this day." should be replaced by footnotes, to appear like this "..his tomb remains to this day [2]."
And the use of symbols such as [2] to refer to footnotes is hardly standard. -- Ec5618 16:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Have a go (if you think that the article is now stable enough), as long as readers would find it easy to operate. Not sure about finding actual quotes to go with the referenced Sources, though, since often the reference is to the general burden of the source rather than to any particular page, but the foonotes for these could in each case simply quote author, title, publisher and date, borrowed from the existing Sources section (I could always add page numbers where appropriate once you get it set up). Ditto, in fact, for the [bracketed] references! Wouldn't that solve the problem? Meanwhile, I propose that, in addition, the existing Sources section itself remain as it is as a general reference, since all titles have in fact been used as a background for the article, even if not necessarily as a foreground, and the list is useful to anybody wanting to research the background to the article. Would the footnote numbers adjust automatically if somebody subsequently added another reference? -- PL 11:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, judging by the way you describe it, it does seem a mess! I would urge against removing anything, though, until we have something better to replace it with. I would have thought that the images are far from irrelevant, in that they illustrate the area and/or the point currently being made without indulging in the tourist guide from which they are taken, thus helping to impress upon readers that Nostradamus was a flesh-and-blood figure living in a flesh-and-blood environment, and not some kind of insubstantial myth, as might sometimes seem to be the case from the popular literature. Better to have them referred to externally than actually incorporated into the article, which would be the other way of doing it. I would have thought that references to online copies of the books being referred to, or to search sites leading to them, was an ideal way of referencing the article. -- PL 10:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
(1) I'm afraid I disagree. They illustrate the article, just as the various images of Shakespeare illustrate the Shakespeare article - and rather more so than the image currently at the top, which is anachronistic. I believe Britannica would call them 'media'. And who said that showing Nostradamus as a real man isn't the intention of the encyclopedia per se?
(2) What are external references supposed to do, if not direct readers away from the Encyclopedia? Isn't a broadening of knowledge part of the aim? Nostradamus's birth at his birthplace isn't a 'claim' (it's stated by all the sources), but illustrating it helps to confirm the reality of it. Certainly, the reference could take the form of a footnote, but that footnote should then go directly to the picture. If you don't like it to be outside the article, then by all means put it inside it. They are all copyable (I believe), and if they're not, I will happily supply copies.
(3) Agreed that 'additional reading' should appear in a 'further reading' section (we used to have one of those, until it was abandoned as more likely to disinform than inform), but referring directly to the text of a Nostradamus title isn't 'additional reading'. It is germane to the subject itself, especially as most readers have no idea that such texts are actually available and are not merely mythical.
(4) If you would be so kind as to point me to particular examples of what you are talking about, I might be able to answer your questions. If the reference is to a whole text, then it refers to... the whole text. If it refers to a collection of texts, then it refers to... a collection of texts. With more detailed information, I might be able to narrow it down for you.
To sum up, there is no reason why external references shouldn't be linked to footnotes, if that's the way you prefer to do it. There's no reason, either, why authors and/or book titles from the Source list shouldn't be copied directly into the relevant foonotes, either. I see that that's how the Shakespeare article seems to do it. But all I can say is... rather you than me!
What are others' views on this?
Oh, and finally... How are readers supposed to know that reviews of the source-titles and various other Nostradamus books are now available via my User page (faute de mieux), if (as you seem to insist by deleting the link) there's no way of pointing at them? My aim in supplying them was to supply information about them, by way of countering Theo's blanket dismissal of them (without actually reading them, of course). Is such information taboo? To what is one not supposed to add original research, and how is one not supposed to refer to it? How is a report on original research 'original research'? -- PL 16:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
My User page! -- PL 11:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Virtually all of it it was indeed 'published elsewhere' long ago – online, in the Newsgroup alt.prophecies.nostradamus, where it is presumably archived.
The pix we're discussing originally came from me! So the question is: which tag should I use to indicate that I retain the copyright while granting Wikipedia a free licence to use the material in connection with the article, and what else should I put in the box provided – my copyright line?
Re the current re-formatting exercise, I'll wait until you have your draft done, Ec, before attempting to upload and insert the pix. Re these, I suggest retaining the current External Link to 'map' near the top (via a footnote), since, if actually included, the map would have to be half-page size to be legible, and this would disrupt the article. Also I would propose to leave out the pic of N's last resting place, retaining only the pic of his tomb, since these would be too close together and once again make too large a hole in the text. -- PL 11:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
PS Or do you think I could get the map in alongside the Table of Contents? -- PL 12:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
PPS Er... no. I still think it would get in the way of reading the article, so please stick with the External Ref!
Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Members
There is a person plenty of wisdom that keeps deleting my links to:
We know where censorship begins, we would never know where it could arrive, be aware that naked faces can be absolutly obscene in certain countries, and they cover themselves with beards. -- -- Giancarlo Rossi 16:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Giancarlo Rossi 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Giancarlo
Re your proposed link to Nostradamus Vaticinia, I have just placed on my User page for you a review of Ramotti's The Nostradamus Code that I posted on a.p.n many years ago, which addresses the question of the 'mysterious' paintings. You may not agree with it (in fact, I'm sure you won't!), but I think you would have to admit that the mere allegation of Nostradamian involvement reported by Ramotti is not sufficient to merit its inclusion in the External Links list, given that all the other references (however odd one or two of them may be) are quite definitely about Nostradamus, as they of course need to be.
Since one of your sites mentions the work of John Hogue, I have also added a review of his Nostradamus: A Life and Myth to my User page – a work that his publishers insisted on commissioning even after I warned them of the sort of thing they were likely to get!
As to your other suggestion re the Prophecy of the Popes, Nostradamus never in fact mentions St Malachy, and the various allegations that his thrice-repeated expression POL MANSOL is a reference to his list of popes is suggested only by those who are entirely ignorant of the geography of Nostradamus's birthplace, to which the expression clearly refers (as you can see from the referenced illustrations in the piece above). You may, of course, like to think that the three references have an 'ulterior' meaning, but if you do you are merely speculating. This is fine, but it doesn't belong in a factual article about Nostradamus.
Thus, I would suggest that neither reference really qualifies for the External Links list.
Meanwhile, have you noticed that all the proposed systems for 'decoding' Nostradamus (Frontenac included) disagree with each other? ;) The reason why the Source List (not the 'Bibliography') stays the same is that they are what the article was and is based on. Once the building is built, you don't change the foundations! -- PL 11:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Very weak defence of your POV, you PL and Jim62sch are losing... the author of the article mentioned his sources, your duty should be to check the sources. You are walking around the object, you're not facing the problem, You should declare yourself incompetent about the matter.
(I really advise that everybody here (maybe only three persons ?) go to his user-page a get a clear idea of his attitude, reading what he wrote about Nostradamus Vaticinia).
It is shown how does he works when he want to demolish a competitor:
(It was the library that stated that the document was "by Nostradamus")
well I can only answer that I was able to build a false quatrain in an imperfect french and to encode the name of the pirate FRANCIS DRAKE.
-- Giancarlo Rossi 21:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
And if you perform the same mysterious decryptions on War and Peace the mind shudders to think what you may find. (BTW: item 4 above makes no sense.) Oh, have you ever decrypted one of Nixon's speeches to see if he returned the favor by encrypting NOSTRADAMUS? Jim62sch 10:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It continues to be shown here, PL and Jim62sch - that both of you are not interested in the slightest in a balanced Nostradamus subject. You continual banter serves only to reinforce both of your ability to have anything relating to Nostradamus and true history. You bring shame to yourselves alone with your false claims, and "attempts" to rewrite history on Wikipedia. To the ridiculous claim that Nostradamus was NOT an Astrologer (PL & Jim) to PL's continued slighting and censoring of the author - Nostradamus himself. You statements, and comments are archived, and on the Talk Page for all to see, and it is no wonder why you ridcule myself, and Giancarlo Rossi - both Nostradamus scholars as well. I suggest that PL, and Jim actually learn more about astrology than to cover up their clear ignorance of the science and art of astrology; especially when it comes to Michel Nostradamus. The cynical, rude comments just flow from both of you, PL, and Jim, like some sad tag team. Obviously, your lack of astrological knowledge disqualifies you from even approaching this subject - and this too is clear from your comments, which has little understanding of astrology in general, and the practice of it in Renaissance Europe in particular. But, rather than being honest about it - you smirk, and are rude to others who show they are knowledgable. This proves your negative point-of-view PL, and Jim, and clearly demonstrates your inability to be taken seriously as you pick, and whine constantly like spoiled children. You accomplish nothing, and your "edits" on this subject is proof of that. Theo 07:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Pl, and Jim, you two tend to forget that there are others watching, and monitoring your own edits, and comments as well. There is little "positive" about your contributions Peter, nor your hateful comments Jim. People can read, and I don't consider either of you honest "scholars" or editors. Your own words, and your edits are being scrutinized. So is your lack of good faith, among other failures to be balanced, kind, and true to history. So, keep up the very bad work on Nostradamus that both of you continue to do such as proclaiming that he is not an astrologer. Even a child who has read anything about the author of Les Propheties knows Michel Nostradamus was an astrologer - except, Peter Lemesurier, and Jiim62sch - who profess to be the KEY to all things known about Nostradamus, but who cannot even read a simple horoscope, nor chart of the celestial bodies. Perhaps this accounts for your bad translations, and even worse biographical "knowledge" of Nostradamus, of course, called an astrophile because he practiced astrology as a "hobby." Great work PL, but it doesn't hold water. Word has been out on Peter Lemesurier for years about his lack of astrological knowledge, and even less on Nostradamus, and most scholars avoid his work because of the errors, and poor scholarship to boot. This reflects even on the German-version of Nostradamus which PL has "edited." One of the worst cases of scholarship on an encyclopedia on this subject; which is why he keeps putting out numerous books on Nostradamus. Why is this? Is not one enough since he knows so much? Theo 10:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Now he's started vandalising the article again with his usual old rubbish. Not bad for a non-member, eh? How are we meant to edit the article rationally with this sort of idiocy going on?
Theo, evidently you don't know the originals, you have never studied most of the modern research, and you don't even know French. Is it any wonder that all you manage to do is bamboozle everybody with your ignorant fiction and unsourced claims?
Do some proper research, young man. Until you have, you won't even qualify to edit the article. Until then, have the courage of your convictions and go, before somebody else gives you a helping hand. -- PL 16:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
From
User:Theodore7
Some people never learn, and will perpetually be young men intellectually. Jim62sch 17:04, 10 February 2006 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Oh, what the heck. I'm going to unprotect the article and see what happens - it's been protected for a couple weeks, which is ridiculous. - DavidWBrooks 18:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've done what I can. There are probably a few technical sillies. Hopefully somebody will correct them. Does anybody object to removing the NPOV tag? -- PL
:::Which is his real name, Jaume or Jaumes? If the former, the apostrophe is misplace: "..Jaume de Nostredame, who was also a prosperous home-grown notary. The latter's family had originally been Jewish, but Jaumes'..."
Jim62sch
16:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I restored the former 'Skepticism' section, then re-titled it. -- PL 17:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
This article is so huge - what about if I move most of the "misquotes and hoaxes" to a separate article, leaving a paragraph or so summation and a link to the article? - DavidWBrooks 15:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
->Yes I agree, since I built the Category:Nostradamus, we could easily write a page "Nostradamus Hoaxes" about everything that is 100% surely not written by Nostradamus, and maybe has a known hoaxing author.
I also agree that a very clear skeptical's SECTION is really needed. We could also build a page about the history, achievements and errors of the Nostradamus interpreters, I would call Gabriele F. for this work.
About Flat Earth... I bought the Scientific American Mag. 1/2006, and is told that in order to explain mathematically how gravity "pulls down" objects is to assume in the equations a FLAT UNIVERSE that makes an olographic projection (like that of those silver stickers), and only our mind and our limited understanding of the real gives us the 3D feeling. I can remember that blind people who see for the first time, see all the objects around inside their eye !
-- Giancarlo Rossi 16:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to do that, perhaps a suitable title would be 'Nostradamus: contentious issues'? That would hopefully keep all the nonsense out of the main article as far as possible. Then people could use it to discuss whether he really was or was not a doctor, an astrologer and/or a prophet, whether he could foresee the future, whether it is really possible to arrive at any kind of future scenario from his predictions and - yes - all the various misquotes and hoaxes. Possibly the 'Skepticism' section could be included, too (now retitled)?
I wouldn't be too optimistic about ever being able to settle on any very clear conclusions, though! There would have to be some pretty strict rules about POV, and the best anybody could do would be to summarise the two sides of each issue. -- PL 17:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
So how about setting up a separate 'Nostradamus: contentious issues' article with those two sections to kick it off, then? Anybody feeling creative? David? -- PL 10:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Can we develop this a bit further? "A good demonstration of this flexible predicting is to take lyrics written by modern songwriters (e.g., Bob Dylan) and show that they are equally "prophetic"." Jim62sch 17:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Are these intended as footnotes, or references for the sections? "(Brind,Amour [1], Prevost, Gruber, Lemesurier [2] and [3])" Jim62sch 17:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be Jean? "Jehan (c.1507-77),"
Jim62sch
19:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Re 'what are claimed to be prophecies' in the Intro, mightn't this be a bit too sneering, and apt to provoke the nutters? I mean, they are prophecies, whether correct or not! -- PL 10:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Re book title under Methods, yes, Jim, I would suggest retaining the layout, as it exposes the fact that the actual title was Les Propheties, not necessarily Les propheties de... --
PL
10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, wasn't too sure. Splendid, in that case. If you really wanted to, I suppose you could probably copy in an *actual* facsimile of the 1555 Albi title page from one of the facsimile sites, if you can find one. -- PL 16:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Throughout the article, both Nostredame and Nostradamus are used, and the usage is only consistent within each section. It would be best to decide on a specific usage, or to decide that Nostredame will be used in discussing his life, education, marriage, etc, and Nostradamus when discussing the prophesy bit. Jim62sch 19:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I was bold, I used Nostredame up to the point where he Latinized the name. Jim62sch 19:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
You were absolutely correct to do so, Jim. (I think we could overlook the point that all his canal work occurred after the change!!) -- PL 10:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It makes absolutely NO SENSE that you people keep deleting "Category:Astrologers" from this page -- he may have indeed been ridiculed by the astrologers of his day (source?), but that doesn't change the fact that he was an astrologer and thus obviously belongs in said category -- just glance through his quatrains for 5 seconds and you start noticing references to "Mars in Leo" or "Jupiter in Aries."
Sometimes you Wiki-people make no sense -- SURE, go ahead and leave the category off this page...yes, let us toss all logic and FACTS out-the-window just to fit in with your personal pet-views while you whitewash the truth on any given subject. But the fact is that when Nostradamus wrote his prophecies they were largely (if not completely) based on ASTROLOGY -- if that doesn't qualify him as an astrologer then I swear to God(s) dogs will start to fly tomorrow morning...please be reasonable with this and stop being a Wikifascist. G'day. -- 152.163.100.196 06:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
IMHO should remain, in the "See Also" part, because Nostradamus seems to give some hints about "De Labore Solis", in the quatrain where he wrotes Pol Man Sol... maybe telling that He was a citizen from Poland. Lands then known by ancient roman (Ovidio) as "Bastarnia". -- 87.10.217.152 12:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, he's at it again, folks! He doesn't learn, does he? More dubious stuff about astrology. More rubbishing of books that he hasn't even read (it's just his usual bluster and pretence, of course). And as for deleting whole chunks of carefully researched material from the article without any discussion here first, simply because he doesn't like it – how's that for sheer ignorance and arrogance, to say nothing of academic vandalism?
Ah well, no more Mr Nice Guy!... -- PL 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Time to clear this page and archive it, David? I gather that Theo won't be around to fill it up for a bit... -- PL 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust%2C_Part_1 (maybe it can give some solemnity to the article) - Giancarlo Rossi 20:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, lots of new links done. Not Goethe, though! :)
One or two of them don't manage to come up with the actual 'external link' symbol: not too sure why. -- PL 10:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I notice this article is using a lot of alternative formatting. If no-one objects, I'd like to change it.
Just so you know: The manual of style objects to the use of boldface outside of the first line of text. It also suggests that link contructions such as "..his tomb remains to this day." should be replaced by footnotes, to appear like this "..his tomb remains to this day [2]."
And the use of symbols such as [2] to refer to footnotes is hardly standard. -- Ec5618 16:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Have a go (if you think that the article is now stable enough), as long as readers would find it easy to operate. Not sure about finding actual quotes to go with the referenced Sources, though, since often the reference is to the general burden of the source rather than to any particular page, but the foonotes for these could in each case simply quote author, title, publisher and date, borrowed from the existing Sources section (I could always add page numbers where appropriate once you get it set up). Ditto, in fact, for the [bracketed] references! Wouldn't that solve the problem? Meanwhile, I propose that, in addition, the existing Sources section itself remain as it is as a general reference, since all titles have in fact been used as a background for the article, even if not necessarily as a foreground, and the list is useful to anybody wanting to research the background to the article. Would the footnote numbers adjust automatically if somebody subsequently added another reference? -- PL 11:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, judging by the way you describe it, it does seem a mess! I would urge against removing anything, though, until we have something better to replace it with. I would have thought that the images are far from irrelevant, in that they illustrate the area and/or the point currently being made without indulging in the tourist guide from which they are taken, thus helping to impress upon readers that Nostradamus was a flesh-and-blood figure living in a flesh-and-blood environment, and not some kind of insubstantial myth, as might sometimes seem to be the case from the popular literature. Better to have them referred to externally than actually incorporated into the article, which would be the other way of doing it. I would have thought that references to online copies of the books being referred to, or to search sites leading to them, was an ideal way of referencing the article. -- PL 10:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
(1) I'm afraid I disagree. They illustrate the article, just as the various images of Shakespeare illustrate the Shakespeare article - and rather more so than the image currently at the top, which is anachronistic. I believe Britannica would call them 'media'. And who said that showing Nostradamus as a real man isn't the intention of the encyclopedia per se?
(2) What are external references supposed to do, if not direct readers away from the Encyclopedia? Isn't a broadening of knowledge part of the aim? Nostradamus's birth at his birthplace isn't a 'claim' (it's stated by all the sources), but illustrating it helps to confirm the reality of it. Certainly, the reference could take the form of a footnote, but that footnote should then go directly to the picture. If you don't like it to be outside the article, then by all means put it inside it. They are all copyable (I believe), and if they're not, I will happily supply copies.
(3) Agreed that 'additional reading' should appear in a 'further reading' section (we used to have one of those, until it was abandoned as more likely to disinform than inform), but referring directly to the text of a Nostradamus title isn't 'additional reading'. It is germane to the subject itself, especially as most readers have no idea that such texts are actually available and are not merely mythical.
(4) If you would be so kind as to point me to particular examples of what you are talking about, I might be able to answer your questions. If the reference is to a whole text, then it refers to... the whole text. If it refers to a collection of texts, then it refers to... a collection of texts. With more detailed information, I might be able to narrow it down for you.
To sum up, there is no reason why external references shouldn't be linked to footnotes, if that's the way you prefer to do it. There's no reason, either, why authors and/or book titles from the Source list shouldn't be copied directly into the relevant foonotes, either. I see that that's how the Shakespeare article seems to do it. But all I can say is... rather you than me!
What are others' views on this?
Oh, and finally... How are readers supposed to know that reviews of the source-titles and various other Nostradamus books are now available via my User page (faute de mieux), if (as you seem to insist by deleting the link) there's no way of pointing at them? My aim in supplying them was to supply information about them, by way of countering Theo's blanket dismissal of them (without actually reading them, of course). Is such information taboo? To what is one not supposed to add original research, and how is one not supposed to refer to it? How is a report on original research 'original research'? -- PL 16:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
My User page! -- PL 11:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Virtually all of it it was indeed 'published elsewhere' long ago – online, in the Newsgroup alt.prophecies.nostradamus, where it is presumably archived.
The pix we're discussing originally came from me! So the question is: which tag should I use to indicate that I retain the copyright while granting Wikipedia a free licence to use the material in connection with the article, and what else should I put in the box provided – my copyright line?
Re the current re-formatting exercise, I'll wait until you have your draft done, Ec, before attempting to upload and insert the pix. Re these, I suggest retaining the current External Link to 'map' near the top (via a footnote), since, if actually included, the map would have to be half-page size to be legible, and this would disrupt the article. Also I would propose to leave out the pic of N's last resting place, retaining only the pic of his tomb, since these would be too close together and once again make too large a hole in the text. -- PL 11:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
PS Or do you think I could get the map in alongside the Table of Contents? -- PL 12:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
PPS Er... no. I still think it would get in the way of reading the article, so please stick with the External Ref!
Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship/Members
There is a person plenty of wisdom that keeps deleting my links to:
We know where censorship begins, we would never know where it could arrive, be aware that naked faces can be absolutly obscene in certain countries, and they cover themselves with beards. -- -- Giancarlo Rossi 16:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
-- Giancarlo Rossi 23:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Giancarlo
Re your proposed link to Nostradamus Vaticinia, I have just placed on my User page for you a review of Ramotti's The Nostradamus Code that I posted on a.p.n many years ago, which addresses the question of the 'mysterious' paintings. You may not agree with it (in fact, I'm sure you won't!), but I think you would have to admit that the mere allegation of Nostradamian involvement reported by Ramotti is not sufficient to merit its inclusion in the External Links list, given that all the other references (however odd one or two of them may be) are quite definitely about Nostradamus, as they of course need to be.
Since one of your sites mentions the work of John Hogue, I have also added a review of his Nostradamus: A Life and Myth to my User page – a work that his publishers insisted on commissioning even after I warned them of the sort of thing they were likely to get!
As to your other suggestion re the Prophecy of the Popes, Nostradamus never in fact mentions St Malachy, and the various allegations that his thrice-repeated expression POL MANSOL is a reference to his list of popes is suggested only by those who are entirely ignorant of the geography of Nostradamus's birthplace, to which the expression clearly refers (as you can see from the referenced illustrations in the piece above). You may, of course, like to think that the three references have an 'ulterior' meaning, but if you do you are merely speculating. This is fine, but it doesn't belong in a factual article about Nostradamus.
Thus, I would suggest that neither reference really qualifies for the External Links list.
Meanwhile, have you noticed that all the proposed systems for 'decoding' Nostradamus (Frontenac included) disagree with each other? ;) The reason why the Source List (not the 'Bibliography') stays the same is that they are what the article was and is based on. Once the building is built, you don't change the foundations! -- PL 11:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Very weak defence of your POV, you PL and Jim62sch are losing... the author of the article mentioned his sources, your duty should be to check the sources. You are walking around the object, you're not facing the problem, You should declare yourself incompetent about the matter.
(I really advise that everybody here (maybe only three persons ?) go to his user-page a get a clear idea of his attitude, reading what he wrote about Nostradamus Vaticinia).
It is shown how does he works when he want to demolish a competitor:
(It was the library that stated that the document was "by Nostradamus")
well I can only answer that I was able to build a false quatrain in an imperfect french and to encode the name of the pirate FRANCIS DRAKE.
-- Giancarlo Rossi 21:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
And if you perform the same mysterious decryptions on War and Peace the mind shudders to think what you may find. (BTW: item 4 above makes no sense.) Oh, have you ever decrypted one of Nixon's speeches to see if he returned the favor by encrypting NOSTRADAMUS? Jim62sch 10:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It continues to be shown here, PL and Jim62sch - that both of you are not interested in the slightest in a balanced Nostradamus subject. You continual banter serves only to reinforce both of your ability to have anything relating to Nostradamus and true history. You bring shame to yourselves alone with your false claims, and "attempts" to rewrite history on Wikipedia. To the ridiculous claim that Nostradamus was NOT an Astrologer (PL & Jim) to PL's continued slighting and censoring of the author - Nostradamus himself. You statements, and comments are archived, and on the Talk Page for all to see, and it is no wonder why you ridcule myself, and Giancarlo Rossi - both Nostradamus scholars as well. I suggest that PL, and Jim actually learn more about astrology than to cover up their clear ignorance of the science and art of astrology; especially when it comes to Michel Nostradamus. The cynical, rude comments just flow from both of you, PL, and Jim, like some sad tag team. Obviously, your lack of astrological knowledge disqualifies you from even approaching this subject - and this too is clear from your comments, which has little understanding of astrology in general, and the practice of it in Renaissance Europe in particular. But, rather than being honest about it - you smirk, and are rude to others who show they are knowledgable. This proves your negative point-of-view PL, and Jim, and clearly demonstrates your inability to be taken seriously as you pick, and whine constantly like spoiled children. You accomplish nothing, and your "edits" on this subject is proof of that. Theo 07:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Pl, and Jim, you two tend to forget that there are others watching, and monitoring your own edits, and comments as well. There is little "positive" about your contributions Peter, nor your hateful comments Jim. People can read, and I don't consider either of you honest "scholars" or editors. Your own words, and your edits are being scrutinized. So is your lack of good faith, among other failures to be balanced, kind, and true to history. So, keep up the very bad work on Nostradamus that both of you continue to do such as proclaiming that he is not an astrologer. Even a child who has read anything about the author of Les Propheties knows Michel Nostradamus was an astrologer - except, Peter Lemesurier, and Jiim62sch - who profess to be the KEY to all things known about Nostradamus, but who cannot even read a simple horoscope, nor chart of the celestial bodies. Perhaps this accounts for your bad translations, and even worse biographical "knowledge" of Nostradamus, of course, called an astrophile because he practiced astrology as a "hobby." Great work PL, but it doesn't hold water. Word has been out on Peter Lemesurier for years about his lack of astrological knowledge, and even less on Nostradamus, and most scholars avoid his work because of the errors, and poor scholarship to boot. This reflects even on the German-version of Nostradamus which PL has "edited." One of the worst cases of scholarship on an encyclopedia on this subject; which is why he keeps putting out numerous books on Nostradamus. Why is this? Is not one enough since he knows so much? Theo 10:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Now he's started vandalising the article again with his usual old rubbish. Not bad for a non-member, eh? How are we meant to edit the article rationally with this sort of idiocy going on?
Theo, evidently you don't know the originals, you have never studied most of the modern research, and you don't even know French. Is it any wonder that all you manage to do is bamboozle everybody with your ignorant fiction and unsourced claims?
Do some proper research, young man. Until you have, you won't even qualify to edit the article. Until then, have the courage of your convictions and go, before somebody else gives you a helping hand. -- PL 16:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
From
User:Theodore7
Some people never learn, and will perpetually be young men intellectually. Jim62sch 17:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)