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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
"With each succeeding major disaster, such as that of September 11, 2001, people have sought, always after the event, to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it...". Isn't this just an example of the extreme American POV that is so dominant on wikipedia. Sure, I do not contest that it was a tragedy for those involved, but in a global (and especially historical) perpective it was definitely not "a major disaster". Look around you, there are "major disasters" taking place all over the world each year such as earthquakes, tsunamis, famine and so on. But I guess it would be too much of me to ask for as most of the wikipedian users probably can't even point out where Africa or Asia is on the map.
George Edward Purdy interpretted Quatrain X.72 as a reference to the September 11, 2001 attacks as follows:
This is one of the few instances where Nostradamus refers to a year directly. This is generally something he avoids, and in this case he is using a simple encryption of the date. The year 1999 with digits reversed is 9111, or 9/11/01. The month listed is "sept mois" which literally means seventh month. September literally means seventh month, and is the seventh month of the astrological calendar, which starts with Mars/March, so the date September 11, 2001 is clearly indicated.
As has been graphically depicted, a great king of terror did come from the sky on that day as terrorists attacked buildings flying commercial airliners.
I believe it could be argued that the great king of Angolmois is the president of the United States who gained much support after the attacks, and launched the War on Terror.
The reference to Mars reigning happily is a reference to the god of war.
I removed "In the immortal words of Arthur C Clarke" as I don't think that kind of wording has any place in an objectively written factual piece of work. Is Mr Clarke an omnipotent being, or are the various manifestations of his work omnipotent? No. He is not 'immortal' and neither are his words. --Anon 23rd May 2006
The section in question reads:
In this and other ways, the real Nostradamus has over the centuries become increasingly unknown, and the unknown Nostradamus "real", to the point where millions of perfectly rational people today believe only legends about him and, to the mystification of the actual scholars in the field, are reluctant to believe anything else — least of all that the real man used the real, and for the most part perfectly humdrum, techniques described above to arrive at predictions that are as vague and nonspecific as they actually are. In the words of Arthur C Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (my emphasis)
What Arthur C Clarke's quote means is that for, say, someone from the 10th century a TV set (the sufficiently advanced technology) would appear as magic since they would simply have no means of assimilating it into their understanding - the technology being too advanced and different from anything they had seen before. There is nothing in the above section that is in the least comparable. That is, the section states explicitly that Nostradamus used humdrum methods and that people are unwilling to belive this, prefering instead to believe he used magic. It says nothing about Nostradamus' actual methods being so advanced and so complex that people cannot understand them. If the point really is that the methods used by Nostradamus were so complex/advanced (i.e not humdrum) that people cannot actually understand them then that should be stated. As things stand, Clarke's quote does not reflect in any way the point made directly preceding it. Davkal 13:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The point is not whether I, or anyone else, understands N's methods or not (I allow for all these possibilities above). The point is simply that Clarke's quote makes no sense at the end of the paragraph as it is currently written. Therefore: either, the paragraph needs to be changed to make the case that N's methods were so complex, i.e. not humdrum, that they would appear to us/me to be magic (like the TV to 10th century man); or, if you want to retain the claim that the methods are indeed humdrum then Clarke's quote should be removed. And, just for the record, N's dark occult reputation is down to the fact that he is believed by many to have obtained foreknowledge of the future by some method and not for the particular methods he used to "obtain" that foreknowldge. Davkal 16:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Reading the paragraph preceding the quote carefully, it relates to the current belief of many people that N's methods were magic. Specifically, "millions of perfectly rational people today believe only legends about him", which establishes the subject of the following observation. Obviously N's technologies are not advanced compared to those of modern times, hence the quote (and most of the above argument) is irrelevant to this paragraph. Erg0 03:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Erg0 has it spot on. The point is about what the paragraph currently says, and not about what what it might say. And as things stand the paragraph says pretty much that people (today) still choose to believe he used magic rather than accepting the more mundane explanations on offer. In such a context a quote such as "people always prefer a good mystery over the truth anyday" might be appropriate but Clarke's quote doesn't mean that at all. Therefore either remove Clarkes quote and choose a more suitable one, OR, if Clarke's quote is to be used then the preceding paragraph must be changed to something like PL is now arguing. That is, that "his 'comparative horoscopy' (and its associated hardware) was a technology far more sophisticated than most people today can imagine". But the paragraph in question, as noted, says the opposite of that now, it says his methods were mundane! Davkal 12:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"Since the time of publication of the book, a virtual cult has grown around Nostradamus and his Propheties. With each succeeding major disaster, such as that of 9/11, people have sought (always after the event) to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it — usually taking considerable liberties either with the original text or with the event itself. Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance."
This seems to be very biased against Nostradamus - TheOtherFonz 18:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I would agree that that part is biased. "..(always after the event)..." is a false statement, since it has been stated by others on this page that some believers in Nostradamus's prophecies believed before 9/11 that there would be an attack in New York form the Middle-East. The last sentence, "Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance," also seems to be false because of this. Even though those believers thought that the attack would use missles, they still accuratley "predicted" an attack in New York from the Middle-East. - nonimus 2006-05-21 02:25 (UTC)
I don't think an encyclopedia is the correct place to put forward personal views about things. The simple fact is that that some people have made predictions prior to certain events based on Nostradamus' writings (9/11) and some other people claim those predictions are not good/specific enough to count as genuine predictions at all. How specfic things need to be, however, is a matter of personal taste and therefore neither point should be cited as fact. In addition, there is a perfectly reasonable way of putting both sides of this debate into an article without claiming that one is correct. For example, "Supporters of Nostradamus have identified numerous quatrains which they claim predict many important world events, while critics argue that in almost all cases the association between the quatrain and the "predicted" event is made after the fact and that in those rare cases (e.g. 9/11) when a prediction is made prior to the event the claims are so general that they have no real predictive value etc. etc.". In this way the article can cover the facts about Nostradamus and the current viewpoints concerning his abilities without presenting those viewpoints as fact. As things stand, the claim that "to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict an event in advance" is simply wrong, since it lacks the caveat "to everyone's satisfaction" or something of the sort.
Two further points. Firstly, I am not an authority on Nostradamus, but as I understand things Nostradamus rose to prominence during his lifetime specifically on account of the fact that Queen Catherine de Medici intrepreted his writings as correctly predicting the death of her husband, and some aspects of the manner of his death, prior to his death. This may not be true, but if it is then we have at least one case where a specific interpretation was made prior to the event.
Secondly, I am unaware of the rules and regulations governing predictions, but it seems to me that the only thing necessary for a prediction to be a prediction is that it accurately predicts an event prior to the event and not that it is necessarily correctly interpreted by others as predicting that event prior to the event. If a clear case can be made that x accurately predicts y then whether it was noticed that x predicts y prior to y happening is largely irrelevant. All failure on this point alone could mean is that the predictions are not much good as warnings or some such thing, but they may still be accurate predictions nonetheless. The question that would decide this point would then become: are the predictions so vague, or so likely (there will be war in the East at some point) as to not really count as a predictions in the strong sense at all. And while this latter point is addressed above, it is very different from the bald assertion that predictions must be perfectly clear to all and sundry prior to the event to count as a prediction at all. After all, if we really are dealing with an ability to gain knowledge of the future by means unknown, then we are in no position to place a priori constraints on the manner in which that knowledge comes to us. Davkal 05:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Davkal
I think the length of the debate in both this section and the "Does not Conform to NPOV" section, clearly shows that it was not written with a Neutral Point of View, but clearly from the non-believers position.
ProdigalSon
08:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you to User:81.240.58.215|81.240.58.215. The negative responses from others, however, do not address the points raised so I shall try to clarify them. Firstly, it is simply not true that nobody has made a succesful prediction using Nostradamus' quatrains, and; secondly, even if it was true it would be irrelevant. This is the reason the statement relating to this claim should either be removed or amended. On the first point, there is, for example, the 9/11 prediction, and I, myself, have predicted using quatrain (pick any quatrain you like) that there will be a FIFA World Cup in Germany this summer (I have even predicted the teams involved, the times of the matches etc. etc.). What is in doubt here, what is a matter of opinion rather than hard fact, as almost everyone in favour of keeping/amending the text agrees, is whether the predictions made are specific enough (in the case of my World Cup prediction surely yes, in the case of 9/11 maybe) or derive clearly enough from the source (in the case of my World Cup prediction clearly not - the picking of any quatrain sort of gives the game away, or in the case of 9/11 maybe) to demonstrate any predictive power in the writings of Nostradamus. But, as noted, this is a matter of personal taste. And the point here is that nobody can rightly lay claim to be official judge of what is and what is not specific enough to count as a genuine prediction given what little we know about the form that foreknowledge of the future would take, if it exists at all. Even if you don't buy any of that, there is still the second point concerning the question of where the claim that it is necessary to correlate a prediction with an event prior to that event gets its importance. The point here again being that given what little we know about the form that foreknowledge of the future would take we simply cannot neutrally place such demands upon prediction. In summary, to insist upon such demands as, e.g., using "all" the elements in a quatrain in one prediction, or to discount the 9/11 prophecy for not having dates (and if it had dates we would then presumably need times of the day and the highjackers' names as well!), or to demand a priori correlation is like saying "of course, none of the proponents of the theory of evolution have succesfully managed to produce any birth, death or marriage records from the jurassic period" which, even being true, is hardly neutral. In both cases, then, it is this placing of constraints that are by no means agreed upon that means that any conclusions drawn (no succesful predictions yet made) are themselves non-neutral and should not be stated as neutral fact. And, given that there are readily available literary devices for dealing with such things, for example, caveats such as "it is argued that...", the resistance to even this simple change seems to me to call into question the neutrality of the article still further. Let us ask, why is this opening section really there: to inform the reader neutrally about Nostradamus (including, if you like, informing them about the debate concerning his predictive powers), or to present judgements about Nostradamus and his commentators from one particular (even if it is correct) standpoint as neutral fact rather than as judgements. Davkal 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)davkal
1. In your first point you make my point for me - excellent. The opening passage passes judgement. Please label it as such with an appropriate caveat or remove it. 2. In your second point you completely ignore my claim that your are not the appointed judge of specificity relating to predictions therefore you are in no position to state categorically that such interpretations/predictions are not of 9/11. That is your opinion, and the best that can actually be said is that if the predictions/interpretations are of 9/11 then they are not exact. Given this the documentary which included the "9/11 predictions" can be cited as the case where a prediction was made prior to an event. 3. I do not see why it should cause so much alarm to insert something like "it is claimed" before a claim rather than to just have the claim stated there as if it were a documented fact rather than a point of some debate. 4. If you look at the actual text in the article "Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance" you will see that it does not even make any reference to specificity re the details of the event (the point you now appear to be arguing, instead it says "any event whatsoever", and in light of the 9/11 predictions this seems just plainly false. Alternatively, if what is meant in the article is that nobody has verified that a prediction has come true prior to the event then, given the impossibility of such an enterprise (discounting validation through further prediction) this should really be made clear since I doubt many readers will guess that the mere claim that nobody has done the impossible is what is being made. Davkal 16:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
For you Jim, as the song says: I predict a diet!
Davkal
18:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not suggesting my comments be included in the article so whether or not they are original research (they're not really in any event) is irrelevant. My main points, as stated (and not yet addressed) are: a) opinion, even opinion from primary academic sources, particularly where they are judgements should have caveats such as "it is claimed", or it has been argued" or "critics maintain" or some such thing to at least demonstrate to the reader that someone has claimed something rather than it being a matter of documented fact in the same way as someone's date of birth for example. It just seems to me, and others (see above and below) that this maks the article appear biased and these caveats would, I think, go a long way to addressing this point; and b) the points in question, due to their nature, cannot in any event be seen as documented fact - that is, the appropriate amount of specificity for a prediction to count as a prediction is a matter of personal taste and no one, not even the most informed commentator on Nostradamus, is in any position to be considered the sole judge of this. This is why the "whatsoever" statement needs to be amended. If you see below I have attempted a rewriting of the second paragraph which, while fairly hastily done, I think better covers the points made without the contentious stuff that many on this page feel is wrong and have been trying to point out in a reasonable fashion.
One further point. As noted above, many on this page have been trying to point out things in a perfectly reasonable fashion and the responses from you (PL and Jim) to anyone who disagrees with you have constantly involved personal sleights, questioning of intelligence, smart-arse comments, questions/statements in French designed to show something or other, and the like. This doesn't make your answers any better or more informed or more likely to be correct; on the contrary, this makes you look like silly little schoolboys engaged in name-calling. I have only recently started trying to contribute to Wikipedia and I have noticed this same trend in a number of other places. It seems to me that a certain level of respect should automatically be given to anyone who takes the trouble to even attempt a serious point in order to improve the content of articles. Davkal 13:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a world of difference between saying "The theory of evolution has been refuted many times", and saying "Creationists claim that the theory of evolution has been refuted many times". To solely look at creationist sources and then say in an article "the theory of evolution has been refuted many times" is just plain wrong or biased or whatever. In the case of N, there are over 200 books in Japanese alone dealing with every aspect of the man - you haven't read them all, and neither have any of your sources.
Yet, you boldly pronounce that your sources have all the material that matters on any point and are therefore free to cite their opinions and conclusions as fact (e.g., no one's ever predicted anything, everyone takes liberty with the translations etc. etc.), without the caveat "X claims that...". If you can see what would be wrong with producing an article like the one on evolution then you should be able to see what many on this page are saying about the article on N. That is, it reads as a one-sided account in many places and while I can't speak for others here, I think a few caveats such as "X says..." would make a world of difference. Davkal 16:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I would appreciate some help to translate in English the below extract of Nostradamus:
Comment ilz signifioient l'homme qui auroit vescu son juste eage.
L'homme qu'auroit acomply son droit eage
Et qu'a vescu jusques au terme parfaict
Signifier nous voulant ce passaige,
Une corneille font metre en vif pourtraict
Car elle vit cent ans de bien long traict,
Cessi vray estre ilz feurent consentens,
L'egiptien an estoit de par tel trait
Qu'il contenoit par lors quatre cens ans.
Much appreciated!
Cheers,
Pete
« Th’Egyptian year = four hundred » (One year = 400) ? Very strange… There must be a mistake in your translation !!!
I'ved added this article to the list of articles that are not NPOV due to things like this, "Since the time of publication of the book, a virtual cult has grown around Nostradamus and his Propheties. With each succeeding major disaster, such as that of 9/11, people have sought (always after the event) to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it — usually taking considerable liberties either with the original text or with the event itself. Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance" it's quiet clear that this article needs a lot of work. The Fading Light 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I can't believe that you ignored the fact that I quoted part of the article that is BLATANTLY NPOV in italics. Maybe a couple of people here need some reading comprehension courses. Nor did you even bother WAITING three days before removing the NPOV tags. Also I am willing to state that not all sources can be considered accurate, did the source sited for the quote come from a site that is already critical of Nostradamus or from a neutral source? The Fading Light 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out one thing about this discussion. Jim, while I agree with you here, I don't think it's fair to judge anyone's ability to contribute solely based on their number of edits, mainspace or not. It may be appropriate to cut someone a little slack who is clearly a newbie, but beyond that, I believe a user should be judged based on their contributions and words alone. - Torgo 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the lack of distinction between "He wrote predictions of the future" and "The predictions were wrong/vague/misquoted" is the crux of the issue here. As it reads now, the article gives an uninformed reader no chance to make up their own mind. Compare to the articles on Graham Hancock or Intelligent Design, equally polarising topics, and far more NPOV. 80.169.138.156 14:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, PL, the tone of the article is in many places not remotely factual. It is argumentative and tendentious. From your lead:
Since the time of publication of the book, a virtual cult has grown around Nostradamus and his Propheties. With each succeeding major disaster people have sought (always after the event) to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it — usually taking considerable liberties either with the original text or with the event itself. Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance.
Let me assure you that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party follower of crank occult beliefs.--
Chris
16:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Just because a bunch of people believe something doesn't mean it should be presented as an equal view to fact. Lots of people believe there are alligators in the New York sewer system, but it's patently false. We can't dumb down the encyclopedia out of fear that people will (*gasp*) actually learn something they didn't know before reading.
"which consists of one unrhymed and 941 rhymed quatrains, grouped into nine sets of 100 and one of 42," Theres either 942 quatrains or the last century is only 41 quatrains long. Bit of a counting error. -- Nog64
I'ved added this article to the list of articles that are not NPOV due to things like this, "Since the time of publication of the book, a virtual cult has grown around Nostradamus and his Propheties. With each succeeding major disaster, such as that of 9/11, people have sought (always after the event) to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it — usually taking considerable liberties either with the original text or with the event itself. Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance" it's quiet clear that this article needs a lot of work. The Fading Light 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I can't believe that you ignored the fact that I quoted part of the article that is BLATANTLY NPOV in italics. Maybe a couple of people here need some reading comprehension courses. Nor did you even bother WAITING three days before removing the NPOV tags. Also I am willing to state that not all sources can be considered accurate, did the source sited for the quote come from a site that is already critical of Nostradamus or from a neutral source? The Fading Light 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out one thing about this discussion. Jim, while I agree with you here, I don't think it's fair to judge anyone's ability to contribute solely based on their number of edits, mainspace or not. It may be appropriate to cut someone a little slack who is clearly a newbie, but beyond that, I believe a user should be judged based on their contributions and words alone. - Torgo 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the lack of distinction between "He wrote predictions of the future" and "The predictions were wrong/vague/misquoted" is the crux of the issue here. As it reads now, the article gives an uninformed reader no chance to make up their own mind. Compare to the articles on Graham Hancock or Intelligent Design, equally polarising topics, and far more NPOV. 80.169.138.156 14:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be protected, since it's on the main page? -- M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ( T | C | @) 00:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I knew it would become a featured article soon. General Eisenhower • ( at war or at peace) 00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere on the internet I saw a translated quatrain disected and noted about talking about a possible WWIII. It had pretty considerable detail. Something about Russia invading Eastern Europe and getting as far West as Italy and a major battle in Genoa. Other than that, I don't remember much. If anyone knows what I'm talking about, please verify what I am saying. Cameron Nedland 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
James Randi has written extensively about Nostradamus. Shouldn't this article be linked to him in some way? Maybe just a mention of him? Winick88
"Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance"
I find that a little hard to believe. While I hardly ever believe in prophecies/soothsayers I was impressed at childhood by Nostradamus and his "sucesses" in predicting based on the past events. For whatever it was worth there was a quartrain predicting a nuclear attack on New York and when my brother chose to go to N. America I wanted him to go anywhere but New York, just to be on the safer side. He then finally moved to Toronto exactly a month prior to the 9/11 attack. Every time I think about that it makes me wonder and marvel at his writings (probably even mistranslations that led to me avoiding NY) that saved a life.
The translation was done by Erica Cheetam and in it says New York attacks specifically with the illustration on the cover page depicting attacks on the WTC among other things. I'm sure many who have done research on Nostradamus' work must be able to cull this piece of information and atleast prove that his prediction (with un/intentional interpretation by the modern day author) could have been partially right in this case. Anyone? -- Idleguy 09:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
oh, okay, so it's not a prediction if I predict something, and it happens. For example, later, we will have wheeled rovers on Venus, much as we do today on Mars.
When that happens, and someone (always after the fact) from my massive cult following (for the sake of parallelism let's assume I become for whatever reason bar none the most famous predicter of humanity's space exploration achievements who ever lived), returns to my trite writings to quote my sentence above, then it's not really a prediction, more like a "prediction" or a "pre-"-diction or pre-"diction", or maybe even a "pre-" "-diction". Why? Because God forbid an encyclopedia entry of a man who is non-notable (except as the most famous person with x job title who ever lived--where x is notable enough to warrant an extensive Wikipedia article) should reflect the facts surrounding the notability of the subject in question. Quick, let's all replace all the articles on famous magicians with refutations of their "magic"!
I find the possibility of wheeled rovers on venus fascinating. sonof Davkal 00:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Tone of this article doesn't seem encyclopedic. The parenthetical asides are biased and unnecessary. 24.172.255.130 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that the intial text keeps changing back and forth. Many suggestions have been made above but all, apparently, ignored. For example, it is clearly argued above that the use of the word "whatsoever" in the second paragraph of the opening section not only renders the claim false but also makes the tone of the piece seem biased - a sort of "that'll teach 'em" approach. I would suggest something more like the following.
"Since the publication of his Propheties, which has been continuously in print since his death, Nostradamus has attracted an almost cult following amongst his many believers who credit him with predicting numerous major world events. In contrast, most serious scholars maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus' quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power. In support of this view critics argue that to date no one is known to have succeded in interpreting any of Nostradamus' quatrains specifically enough to allow a clear identification of any event in advance."
This, I think, sums up reasonably well the current state of affairs concerning Nostradamus' popularity, his believers and their detractors. It also seems to me a far more reasonable section to include right at the start of an article about Nostradamus, inasmuch as it covers what is one of the most remarkable things about the man - his continuing popularity and the debate surrounding his work more than 500 years after his death - without the "sniping" tone of the original.
Davkal
10:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the section entitled Works reads as follows:
Since his death only the Prophecies have continued to be popular, but in this case they have been quite extraordinarily so. Indeed, they have seldom, if ever, been out of print. This may be due partly to popular unease about the future, partly to people's desire to see their lives in some kind of overall cosmic perspective and so to give meaning to them — but above all, possibly, to their vagueness and lack of dating, which enables them to be wheeled out after every major dramatic event and retrospectively claimed as "hits". (my emphasis)
This is pure speculation and or new research and should not really be included I think. Davkal 12:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
In the section on Methods which begins "Nostradamus, it should be remembered..." and which purports to show that Nostradamus denied being a prophet there are several quotes from letters etc. in which Nostradamus appears to say he is not a prophet. There are two points here. Firstly, there are no notes or references in this section suggesting that these quotes have been used before by any Nostradamus scholar to support the contention that he was claiming not to be a prophet. If no such sources exist then this looks to me like new research which should not be included. If others have made similar claims then it should be referenced so that I can find out more about this surprising claim. Secondly, the quotes do not look to me like actual denials from Nostradamus but rather look representative of a peculiarity, fairly common in previous times, where authors would deliberately use such self-effacement in the preface to books etc. This does not mean that such authors are actually claiming that their books are no good, or that they are poor authors, or that they are not prophets, it simply means that they were following the trends of the day and attempting to appear humble (before God). There is also the final quote in which it seems to me that Nostradamus is saying, in a round about way, that he is making predictions.
My point was not that he did not make the statements (the sources are all cited in the article so that much is clear). My point is that to bring any set of quotes from N together to make a point that has not been made by the scholars who have studied him is almost by definition research - reason one for omitting the section. And, given that we can explain these quotes, as you do, by saying that N was merely distancing himself from biblical prophets, and biblical prophet status, so as not annoy the inquisition, there seems very little left to the argument that he did not think of himself as a "prophet" in the modern sense, ie. as one who predicts. If this is correct, then the point of the passage may well be wrong (which in turn may account for nobody having made it before) - reason two for omitting the section. Davkal 19:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Jim, awa n boil yer heid, I don't need to do any further research to know what "research" means. And that is one of my main points, which are not ludicrous but very straightforward. They are: 1) if the theory that N actively denied he was a prophet (or was making predictions) is in the literature on N then a note should be included letting me (and others) know who said this. 2) If this claim is not made in the literature, then drawing together a set of quotes from N to make a new point is almost the definition of new research. And 3) the quotes used do not look to me like actual denials; rather, they look like a combination of humbleness (in keeping with the times) and N's attempts to cover his back from the inquisition (which is what PL seems to suggest). Morever, in the final quote N seems to state fairly explicitly that he is making predictions. In summary; 1) if it's in the literature tell me where; 2) if it's not take it out; and 3) it may be wrong.
And, just for the record, I am in no way a believer in the prophecies of the N and I am not trying to suppress anything. What I am interested in - if you look at every point I have made so far - is in trying to improve this article. The first section, for example, to almost unanimous agreement, is now better as a result of my rewriting of it.And the facts that: a) the type of changes suggested were clearly stated in my arguments; b) I had rewrite it in line with my arguments; c)you hotly disputed all of my arguments; and d) you agreed to my proposed changes once I had written them, clearly shows just how little you understood from my arguments. I have also had a 3-day argument with you (and PL) about whether the word "mundane" means unimaginably complex - it does not.
And and, just for another record: the sun (our sun) isn't the centre of the universe. Davkal 18:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
From your article:
"He then began his project of writing a book of one thousand quatrains, which constitute the largely undated prophecies for which he is most famous today."
and
"his relationship with the Church as a prophet and healer was excellent"
I guess that these, then, (and the other 50 like them) should be removed or amended. Davkal 12:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
"Since his death only the Prophecies have remained extraordinarily popular. Their vagueness and lack of dating enables them to be claimed as "hits" after any major dramatic event."
“ | I do but make bold to predict (not that I guarantee the slightest thing at all), thanks to my researches and the consideration of what judicial Astrology promises me and sometimes gives me to know, principally in the form of warnings, so that folk may know that with which the celestial stars do threaten them. Not that I am foolish enough to pretend to be a prophet. —Open letter to Privy Councillor (later Chancellor) Birague, 15 June 1566 |
” |
(I do but make bold text - my joke above; my emphasis)
Davkal
13:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted Jim62sch's reversion of my earlier change. The question is whether "Nostradamus, born Michel de Nostredame" is preferable to "Michel de Nostredame, commonly known as Nostradamus". So, what's the answer? Did he change his name, so that his priest, say, or the guy he bought vegetables from referred to him as Nostradamus? Or was Nostradamus merely the name under which he published his books? I've assumed the latter, but if there was a formal name change, perhaps a explicit note in the text would be appropriate.-- Chris 14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
1. For para 2:
Since the publication of his book entitled Les Propheties, which has rarely been out of print since his death and has always been hugely popular across the world, Nostradamus has attracted an almost cult following. His many enthusiasts, to say nothing of the popular press, credit him with predicting numerous major world events. In contrast, most of the academic sources listed below maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus' quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power. Moreover, none of the sources listed offers any evidence that anyone has ever succeeded in interpreting any of Nostradamus' quatrains specifically enough to allow a clear identification of any event in advance.
2. For last section under 'Works':
Since his death only the Prophecies have continued to be popular, but in this case they have been quite extraordinarily so. Over 200 editions of them have appeared in that time, together with over 2000 commentaries. Their popularity seems to be partly due to the fact that their vagueness and lack of dating make it easy to quote them selectively after every major dramatic event and retrospectively claim them as "hits" (see Nostradamus in popular culture."
Can we agree on these? I so, I will incorporate them into the article. -- PL 09:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the current-day value of N's estate of 3444 crowns? Someone edited the earlier estimate of $300K (US) to $1 million (US). Given the vagaries of price comparisons, should we even include a direct equivalent?
"Crown" may refer to an écu couronné comprising 60 sols, like the Louis XIII écu. If that's so, and the estimate here of 1 sol:$50 is valid, then the estate was worth slightly over 10 million dollars. Not bad for a best-selling author, but not a figure I would trust. Does anyone have a better-documented estimate?-- Chris 19:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Are the two examples (the Jewish homeland and the Civil war) now cited in the opening section supposedly predictions made in advance by interpreting Nostradamus' quatrains, or merely predictions from completely different sources. I have briefly checked the links but can find no mention of N. If they are not predictions based on the writing of N then surely they have no place here. Davkal 20:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is editor "PL" (who obviously is Peter Lemesurier) engaging in blanket reversions of legitimate edits without comment or rationale? Twice I renamed the (very) poorly named heading "The role of interpretation" to 'Skeptical views of Nostradamus' prophecies' which describes its section far more lucidly and succinctly than the previous heading. Both times PL simply reverted without comment. Despite your status as a publisher of books on the subject of Nostradamus [1] you would do well to disabuse yourself of the notion that you seem to hold that since you may have written a portion of an article you 'own' it. -- Deglr6328 05:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
PL, your proposal to blanket-revert over 100 recent edits by dozens of editors, the vast majority well-meaning contributions, is not acceptable and is disrespectful of these other Wikipedians. If you do this again, it will have to go to mediation.
There is no reason why we cannot work together on this article. As I've argued before (and I think my view represents the consensus of commentators), this generally good article is marred by a florid and opinionated style that is far from the NPOV ideal. (This is not to say that such a style doesn't have its place - where would we be without Thomas Carlyle?) As such, the article required, and still requires to some degree, a fairly extensive but superficial stylistic edit. This is apart from some minor problems with sourcing and organization of the sort that are found in many good articles.
I would be happy to work with you, Jim62sch, Deglr6328, and other contributors to further improve this article. To help cool things down, I won't object if you want to roll back to Kinneyboy90's edit of 08:47, 1 June 2006 - that's the one immediately preceding your first blanket revert. Let's try to work consensually from this point onwards, recognizing, of course, that neither you nor anyone will necessarily approve each and every edit.-- Chris 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Do not change the name of this section. •Jim62sch• 21:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
On of the things that concerns me about this article on a general level is the amount of references to the work of Peter Lemesurier - the discredited "pyramidiot" who claims amonst other things, as far as I understand his ludicrous ramblings, that the Great Pyramid at Giza has prophecies built into its architechture including the prediction that human beings will no longer have need of their mortal bodies sometime in the late fourth-millenium AD. I think any article making reference to the work of such an author should make mention of the fact that he is widely regarded as a crank among the academic/scientific community. Here, for example, is a review of one of his books as promoted on his own website. GODS OF THE DAWN 'The message of the.pyramids and the true Stargate mystery'. Basing itself on Lemesurier (1. above), Bauval, Hancock et al., this proposes that the Egyptian pyramids are in fact star-markers summoning us to an eventual encounter with some vastly superior intelligence in the region of Orion, rather along the lines of the monolith in '2001'
Hmmn, yes! Perhaps his animosity to N's prophecies is because they don't agree with his own. N's supposed successes being merely the result of after-the-fact chicanery performed on vague and nebulous quatrains, whereas Lemesurier's predictions are based on crystal-clear, no interpretation needed, stone blocks. As Groucho Marks said to the author "when I picked up your book I didn't stop laughing until I put it down - I aim to read it someday". Davkal 12:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll wait until after the supposed "eventual encounter with some vastly superior intelligence in the region of Orion" has taken place (maybe you could shed some light on how long I'll need to wait) and then write Mr Lemesurier a letter of apology shall I.
Also, were you there when Lemesurier delivered his lecture in French (in French mind you) at the House of Nostradamus hairdressing salon on the prophetic significance of late 20th century hairstyles. I ask because I have heard it argued that the resurgence in popularity of the mullet has been decoded and points to a possible meeting with unknown ocean intelligences in 4178 AD - rather along the lines of the film The Abyss. Davkal 16:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I have shown myself to be a pompous ass haven't I - the kind who would lapse in etymological arguments at the drop of a hat rather than just accept that I had made a mistake. I feel so chided - it's almost as if the super intelligence from (somewhere in the vicinity of) Orion had come down (up?) to Earth to tell me off in person. And, just in case you're listening Magnus Orion Magnusson, 1) caveats such as "it is claimed" or "X has shown that" should be placed before statements of opinion, however authoritative the (lack of) sources are - or irrespective of how many of your own books you're trying to sell (I knew all the time); new research means roughly (ie. exactly) new research, and mundane doesn't mean so complicated that someone might mistake it for magic. So, off you go back to Orion's Trousers and don't come back until your English is as good as your moyen francais (as I believe it is rather than, as you would have it, francais moyen). Good night, God Bless, and buy British! Vive le Cheetham Erica! Davkal 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"Quite" erm, well, oh yes: in the original Greek it was quite common to move an "e" from the middle of the word to after what would normally be the last letter - so any Greek scholar would easily have seen that the word was supposed to be "quiet". There is a fundamental difference between a typo (your jottings above are full of them, and I have never stooped so low as to condemn you for that) and a simple failure to understand the meaning of words. And, was I really bustin' dude? Davkal 09:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have shown above, on numerous occasions, that the Clarke quote did not fit (I presume this is why it has now been removed). The fact that you still fail to see why demonstrates everything that needs to be shown about your understanding of basic English. A quote following a paragraph should emphasise the point made in the paragraph and should not make some quite different point, or worse, illustrate a contradictory point. This is why Clarke's quote about unimaginably complex technology appearing magical is so ludicrous when chosen to emphasise the point that the mundane methods used by N are not accepted by a modern audience because of a craving for magic. In addition, you (and PL) have been abusive to virtually everyone who has attempted a criticism, however slight, of the article. You have not demonstrated an even cursory level of respect for the views of others. You have engaged endlessly in disingenuous equivocation. You have peppered almost every response with ad hominem attacks. And you have demonstrated an almost total inability to construct a logically sound argument. I urge you to re-read some of the things you have written on this page and then make the appropriate apologies to all those you have needlessly tried to offend - irrespective of whether they actually took offence. Davkal 11:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Lemesurier writes in a fluent style and manages to include a great many hard facts about the latest issues discussed among scholars in the field without burdening his book with scientific jargon. No doubt this is a fine piece of work, putting together a great number of sources used by the prophet and original works by Nostradamus so far not published in English. Dr Elmar Gruber (leading German Nostradamus expert, and one of the article's other academic sources)
I purchased this biography for an assignment I have to do. As a high school student this book was hard for me to understand. The author of this book is a famous nostradamus critic that knows and did a lot of research and its shown in the book. I would give this book 4 stars if it was a bit more exciting. A young Amazon reader
Here is, finally, a biography of Michel de Nostredame that is based on objective research. The amount of information presented in this biography, and its accompanying appendices (which include translations of Nostradamus' lesser-known writings), clearly indicates that Lemesurier has conducted a considerable amount of research in order to produce this fascinating and very different book on Michel de Nostradame. A history of the man himself is presented along with supporting correspondences and publications from Nostradamus' lifetime, a few of which would come as quite a shock to modern American "fans" of Nostradamus. I would recommend this book to anyone who has a either serious in, or a mere curiousity about, the man Michel de Nostredame - AKA Nostradamus. Another Amazon reader
Published in honor of the 500th anniversary of his birth, The Unknown Nostradamus by linguist, translator, educator, and Nostradamus expert Peter Lemesurier is a comprehensive and up-to-date biography of Nostradamus, the medieval prophet whose predictions are still closely studied today. Extensively researched, filled with translations of contemporary critiques of Nostradamus' work, offering full translations of surviving documents, and much, much more, The Unknown Nostradamus is a "must-read" for anyone seeking to learn more about this remarkable figure and his metaphysical and encoded prophetic visions. Midwest Book Review
Readers seeking a balanced look at the controversial astrologer will do well to start here. Publishers Weekly
Highly recommended biography. Stern magazine (Germany), 4th December 2003 (bibliographical comment, translated)
Here is a book that tells you the truth and nothing but the truth about Nostradamus! East and West
Valuable insights into the medieval world as well as the seer’s life and work. This book would be of interest to both devotees and debunkers of Nostradamus. The Beacon
This book has the power to overturn the preconceptions and myths about Nostradamus and launch those who are serious about the subject into an entirely new direction of thought. Indeed, once again, Peter Lemesurier leaves authors such as John Hogue, Erika Cheetham etc, wanting in this field of study, by demonstrating his scholarly authority and providing students of Nostradamus with the most up to date research on his life and works. Gary Somai (UK)
If anyone in the world could discover the 'truth' about the seer it would be Peter Lemesurier. Mario Gregorio (archivist, international Nostradamus Research Goup, and owner of the main facsimile site listed under 'External Links')
A. Specialist and peer reviews:
...a major breakthrough in Nostradamus research... notably successful in translating "Les Propheties" into readable English and in giving to the quatrains a more true meaning instead of the rough translations that we knew until now. One of the most impressive achievements is the explanation of Nostradamus's sources... a truly magnificent result. Mario Gregorio, archivist of the international Nostradamus Research Group and owner of the main facsimile site listed under 'External links'
Lemesurier's book is a significant effort to reveal the written sources underlying the prophecies of Nostradamus. He especially manages to show convincingly how Nostradamus drew on contemporary publications for implicit references in his abundant use of omens. In this way Lemesurier reveals where Nostradamus really took his "inspiration" for many of his prophetic verses. This book represents one more substantial step in the critical evaluation of the work of the famous Renaissance prophet. Dr Elmar R. Gruber, leading German Nostradamus expert and one of the article's other academic sources
Peter Lemesurier is well known in the uneasy world of Nostradamians as a conscientious and accurate researcher. Probably his strongest point is that he investigates the Prophecies of Nostradamus in the context of the time when they were composed. His translation of the quatrains is based on an impartial analysis of 16-century-related materials and strict observance of the available historical sources. Alexey Penzensky, prominent Russian Nostradamus scholar, and editor of books on Nostradamus
An excellent edition of Nostradamus's Prophecies based on the original editions (Lyon: 1555, 1557 and 1568) with their translations, and especially its research into the textual and iconographic sources (including the famous Mirabilis Liber). This new opus of Peter Lemesurier will be just as helpful to the researcher as it will intrigue the newcomer and interest him in the universe of the Provençal prophet. Dr Patrice Guinard, Director, Centre Universitaire de Recherche en Astrologie (CURA), of whose site (listed under 'External links') he is the owner
B. Media review
A revelation. I am amazed by the translations’ objectivity and Lemesurier’s refusal to interpret the prophecies beyond what the text itself suggests. The handsomely produced book is a supremely important volume to stock in your store. New Age Retailer
Fantastic look into the life of the most famous prophet of all time. From his Family Tree to his will, his preminitions and the translations. Not sure what happened to some of them though. dkzopstaker (Amazon UK)
This book has everything anyone wants to know about Nostrodamus.Its starts off with a comprehensive biography.Detailed maps,Family tree,Portraits and more.What makes this book better than others on him is that his ideas are being challenged instead of completley going aloung with him.All quartens are translated and explained.Very comprehensive look at his early life and also on people he knew.Definatley recomended. Michaelhogan20 (Ireland)
The modern languages expert Peter Lemesurier is widely regarded as Britain's leading authority on Nostradamus. His Nostradamus Encyclopedia, published in 1997, represents itself as the 'definitive reference guide to the work and world of Nostradamus'. Ian Wilson, another of the academic sources listed
Le sous-titre est un peu ambitieux et le texte retenu pour les quatrains de Nostradamus n'est pas toujours convaincant, mais l'ouvrage est superbement illustré et propose une très utile concordance des Prophéties. Prof Bernard Chevignard, Department of Language and Communication, University of Burgundy, Dijon, and another of the article's academic sources, in Presages de Nostradamus, 1999, p.470)
--
PL
09:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you may have demonstrated that Lemesurier is less of a crank re N that he seems to be re his other works (I would not, however, put too much faith in Amazon books reviews as it is common knowledge that may of these are written by the authors themeselves). Two further things concern me though: firstly, some of the reviews here seem to be from others who are cited in the sources; and secondly, there are a few obvious others who are not cited in the sources - e.g, Erica Cheetham and John Hogue (both of whom have some excellent reviews on Amazon and are two of the most popular authors of books about N). In tandem, these concerns suggest the following point: the article itself is fundamentally biased. It is an article based primarily on the work of one author (and possibly, I don't know, a small clique of N friends) and is solely designed to represent their view of N rather than to provide a balanced account of N, his work, and any current debate concerning N. At virtually every stage, then, where the article moves away from undisputed territory (e.g N's date of birth), I believe it is clearly in breach of the Wikipedia rules governing NPOV. That is, where debates exist - even if one view is considered dominant or popular or more scientific/academic - debate should be presented as debate. As things stand this simply cannot be said about the article. Also, please note that it is no answer to this concern to merely point out that all an article can do is reflect the "academic" sources it is drawn from, since my point is that these sources have been cherry-picked to agree with the primary source: Peter Lemesurier. I further think that this article has been written with the express purpose of promoting the work of Lemesurier as the definitive commentator on N. As such I think it should be removed pending an investigation of the motives of the author(s). Davkal 16:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You say Cheetham is a fraud, I say you and PL are frauds. I say Lemesurier is a fraud. I say all the sources cited in the article are part of a small mutual back-slapping clique that is in no way representative of the academic views on N currently available. And, when you say you would have "not have gotten involved", I simply don't believe you. You are one out of the two people (along with PL) that I am accusing of hijacking this article for either prestige or material gain. Davkal 00:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Guetturda; what you do is this: you write an article citing yourself as the only reliable English language author on a popular topic and fail to mention any other authors whether popular or not. You then provide a link to your website (and nobody else's) where your books are available for sale. In other words you use Wikipedia as a form of advertising without having to pay for it. Davkal 22:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Jim, if you see below, you will see that in essence most of the claims here have been corroborated by PL (i.e., the claims minus the inflammatory language). For example, several scholars who disagree with Lemesurier et al (described by PL as a "few mavericks") have not had their views represented nor are they cited in the sources. This is in clear contradiction of Wikipedia rules governing NPOV. In addition, PL has stated explicitly, also contrary to Wikipedia rules, that sources who are not considered academic enough (by PL) have likewise been excluded. What this means is the article is written from one point of view (not even the sole academic view) and in cases where a contrary view is raised it is raised merely to be discarded in the same sentence. I have, however, temporarily removed the POV flag placed on this article today since PL has agreed to rewrite part of the article in order to take account of these complaints. A,LYAOAAIFOWYLACRAKYFHI Davkal 22:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
My point about frauds is that it is easy to say such things. (You say Cheetham is a fraud, I say you are frauds.) My main point though is that I simply do not believe either of you are acting in good faith re this article. As I have said, I do not believe that the sources you cite are necessarily independent of each other or necessarily reprsentative of the wider academic view of N. Instead I believe them to have been cherry-picked to support the views of Lemesurier. (The number of times the argument that "we can only go by what is in the sources" has been used is what leads me to this belief.) I have never claimed to be a Nostradamus scholar, but neither do I need to be an scholar of evolution to smell a rat if all the sources cited are, or seem to be, creationist. I think the article should be referred, if such a thing is possible, to allow an appraisal of the sources. One reason being that even if Hogue or Cheetham's books are not used to provide any quotes etc., they should be mentioned in the article listed in the sources as two of the most widely-read commentators on N. As things stand, they merely appear not to exist and this I know to be false. Davkal 12:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I will give one further example of why I think this article fails Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia rules state that all viewpoints (except extreme minority viewpoints) should be presented. This does not mean that they should all be given the same weight or that they should all be considered equally valid. Now, from the little I do know about N, I know that a significant view is that N's writings need to be "decoded" insome way and that a face value translation will not reveal what he was trying to say. This view is represented nowhere in the article. All this is mentioned is that would be code-breakers are prone to error - that this point is made seems to suggest that I am right in my assumption that such a view exists. But, who are these would be code-breakers, what is the code they think is there, how have they endeavoured to break the code, what evidence, if any, do they offer for there being a code. Nothing! Therefore the article does not present their view and is accordingly in breach of the rules. Davkal 12:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Cheetham's The Prophecies of Nostradamus (Corgi, 1973) – partly based, reportedly much to his annoyance, on Leoni – was something of a pioneering venture, in that it made available to the general public for the first time for centuries a fairly reliable reprint of the 1568 edition of Nostradamus's Propheties (minus its Preface and its dedicatory Letter to Henri II). Apart from that, though, it was stuffed from cover to cover with historical, etymological and linguistic errors, as well as being rather credulous about the seer. Much the same applied to her later The Final Prophecies of Nostradamus (Futura, 1989), which was basically just a re-hash of the earlier work, though with even more errors. Her The Further Prophecies of Nostradamus (Corgi, 1985) filled in some of the gaps left by the other two.
As Randi not unreasonably puts it in his The Mask of Nostradamus (Prometheus, 1993, pp.143-4), 'Some "authorities", such as Erika Cheetham, are not discussed here because their work is not thoroughly enough researched... Her books on Nostradamus are among the most widely available and read today, but she cannot be taken seriously. Any critical treatment of her work would take an entire volume just to correct errors.'
For obvious reasons, then, her books do not qualify for the Nostradamus Source-list, especially as the original 1568 text is now available directly online via the article's External Links.
Book Review: John Hogue's 'Nostradamus: A Life and Myth' (444 pages: Element, 2003): ISBN 0-00-714051-7
John Hogue's new biography of Nostradamus is better than I expected - but not much. As a literary biography, it is much more literary than it is a biography. The 16th century French seer's cultural and historical background is indeed extensively and lovingly described, but the rest of the book seems merely to consist of huge clouds of elaborate, typically Hoguean speculations about Nostradamus - 'he may have', 'he could have', 'perhaps', 'we can imagine that', 'it is possible that' - interspersed with only relatively brief factual extracts from the seer's known life-story. One would almost think that very little is known about it.
Hogue (a self-confessed 'rogue scholar' - p. 124) starts his book by rubbishing the purely factual approach. It is a wise precaution. For, despite his frequent professions of scepticism, various of the usual hoary myths and Old Wives' Tales - the famous stories of the Wrong Pig, the Surprised Future Pope, the Lost Dog - are duly trotted out, as are the fake Prophecies of Orval. Hogue doesn't actually insist that they are all true. In fact he describes them as 'apocryphal'. But we are still left with the distinct impression that we really ought to take such undocumented later inventions seriously, or at least to consider them as possibilities. Otherwise why mention them in the first place? As a result, the newcomer to the subject is left not really knowing what to take as fact and what as fiction.
And then there are his translations. Several of Hogue's most recent original translations of Nostradamus's prose in particular just don't correspond to any edition of the French originals that I have ever seen. Whole chunks are omitted without acknowledgement, whole sentences at best paraphrased and at worst misparaphrased. As for his translations of the prophetic verses, most of these are in my view frankly grotesque, and some are not even in comprehensible English.
Which leaves, I'm afraid, all the other fallacies and factual errors in the book. Here are just a few of the more obvious ones:
I could go on... 'Aurens' for Aurons, 'De Tornay' for De Tournes, 'Catherine de' Medici' for Catherine de Médicis, 'chateau Blois' for Château de Blois, even 'Salon en Provence' for Salon-de-Provence -- but what would be the point? However, just to add one final point, since Hogue makes so much of it, even while seeming to question it...
To Hogue, certainly, Nostradamus was an occult Master, a powerful mage with gifts of theurgy and foresight that are scarcely imaginable. The image has a long, if dubious, pedigree. I have no doubt that he honestly believes in it. But so anxious is he to reinforce this impression, that he ignores, or is unaware of, a great deal of recent research that suggests precisely the contrary, namely that the seer's real 'inspiration' lay almost exclusively in written documents - pre-existing collections of prophecies, published historical works, printed reports of 'omens' old and new... As Arthur C Clarke puts it: 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic' – or any technology, one feels tempted to add, that is sufficiently unknown to the beholder.
Hogue concludes his doorstop of a book not only with an index and bibliography, but with 34 pages of useful (but not entirely reliable) chronological tables, and no less than 64 pages of liberally-spaced footnotes, infuriatingly arranged by difficult-to-identify chapters.
That said, it has to be admitted that Hogue's latest elephantine literary masterpiece is at least entertaining and engaging to read. For obvious reasons it is not, however, suitable for the article's source-list.
With virtually ever sentence you convict yourself of breaching Wikipedia rules. The point I make is merely that these books exist and form part of the overall debate surrounding the works of N. As such Wikipedie rules state explicitly that they should be mentioned and discussed fairly. Since you admit that you have excluded them deliberately, you prove my point that the sources for the article have been cherry-picked, and that you have no intention of writing an article in line with Wikipedia rules but are writing, instead, an account of N solely from one perspective. The perspective of Lemesurier who may, or may not, be representative of the current academic view of N. Davkal 13:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not able to write such a section because my knowledge of the subject is too scant (please note I have never claimed anything else). That such a section is needed in the main article, though, follows from the Wikipedia rules stated below. In this particular, and peculiar, case it would even seem that the academic view is the minority view (the statement -not currently in the article- about what millions of people believe lends support to this). And this, I think, will make amending the article very difficult re balancing the overwhelming view (presumably wrong) with the academic view (presumably correct). Perhaps articles on, for example, Travis Walton (known primarily for his alledged abduction by aliens rather than for his abilities as a lumberjack), or the Loch Ness monster, may provide suitable templates for how such an article might best be attempted - I have not looked at these articles but merely suggest that they mirror the present case in some important respects. As noted, I do not have the knowledge to write such an article on N but, as you have consistently pointed out, you do. I therefore think you may be best placed to write the appropriate sections. Davkal 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have placed the POV flag on this article since the authors admit deliberately excluding discussion of commonly known issues re the subject.
Some of the relevant sections of Wikipedia policy on POV are reproduced below:
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. Davkal 13:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
On this point you admit that at least one expert has a different opinion, you know who he is, and you have knowingly not included his POV in the article. So, now we have some experts (those who are in agreement) have their views represented in the article, one expert (who disagrees) is not mentioned or cited as a source at all, and the vast majority of commentators on N (who you consider non-academic) are neither cited nor discussed and are merely the subject of one or two throw away lines. I simply cannot see how that in any way reflects Wikipedia policy. Davkal 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The concerned parties are those on either side of the debate and not N, as you well know. This like saying that only the acedmic view of the Loch Ness Monster should be put forard since academy=expert and the only other concerned party is Nessie herself. Come on! Davkal 15:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The example given in the rules makes this issue perfectly clear. Those who believe the Earth to be round are the experts (and in this case the majority) and the Flat-earthers are the other concerned parties (in this case the minority). In the case of N, the academic sources can be considered the experts (although probably in the minority) and those who believe that N was a prophet and who write about such things are the other concerned parties (in this case probably the majority). Do you really believe that writing "and those who are the subject of the article" is beyond the abilities of the Wikipedia policy writers. And what could such a thing mean in most cases given that the majority of articles in Wikipedia are about things rather than people. Davkal 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the POV flag. I think though that several points need to be noted. A considerable number of people (myself included) originally attempted to comment reasonably on this article only to have our intelligence/motives questioned at every turn. There was even the ludicrous sight of one commentator above going to great lengths to pre-empt an attack of this sort prior to stating his actual point. Several people on this page have been critical of the way you (and Jim) have responded to people. I am not sure if this drove the others away or they simply became bored. I have, unfortunately, resorted to much the same tactics that I had criticised earlier on. What these types of comments do is make the place a particularly unpleasant one and there seems to me to be no need for this. It also polrises debate to the extent that even extraordinarily simple matters become serious bones of contention. The end result, as I see it, is that every gets annoyed and the article gets no better. You may not believe this, but until I made the point about Lemesurier being a crank (I am actually a great supporter of von Daniken - not his theories particularly but his disregard for authroity and accepted wisdom) I had done nothing more than suggest a few improvements to the article, which, once I had actually written them, were almost universally regarded as improvements. Nonetheless, when I originally made these points they were treated with an amount of hostility I could not believe. And while I don't want to say "you started it" I do feel that the comments I ended up making were largely the result of an attitude prevalent onb this page prior to my involvement. Indeed, I made the points about the tone of some of the responses very early on in my involvement but these had little or no effect. I do hereby solemnly swear (or some such thing) that I will attempt to conduct myself in a reasonable manner, that I will endeavour to not use belittling language, and that I will treat any comment made by anyone as worthy of respect. I can only hope that all others will follow suit. Davkal 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Later... OK here's a draft, rather earlier than expected. Let me know if you think I have left anything out... I would propose to insert it in Nostradamus in popular culture, while inserting the self-same heading in the main article followed by "Please refer to Nostradamus in popular culture", which would seem to be eminently appropriate. I have inserted straight text references, which I would would hope that Jim would agree to convert into pucker reference-notes. -- PL 09:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Views differing considerably from the foregoing are to be found both in printed literature and on the internet. At one end of the spectrum, there are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn [see his contributions to the Benazra and CURA sites listed under 'External links'], suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus' Propheties are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind. Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are a large number of fairly recent popular books (backed up by literally thousands of private websites) suggesting not only that the Propheties are genuine, but that Nostradamus was a true prophet. Unfortunately, thanks to the vagaries of interpretation, no two of them agree on exactly what he predicted, whether for our past or for our future [Lemesurier, P: The Nostradamus Encyclopedia, 1997]. There is a general consensus, however, that he predicted the French Revolution, Napoleon, Hitler, both World Wars, and the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is also a general consensus that he predicted whatever major event had just happened at the time of the various books' publication, from the Apollo moon landings, through the death of Diana, Princess of Wales and the Challenger disaster, to the events of 9/11: this 'movable feast' aspect appears to be characteristic of the genre [Lemesurier, Peter, The Unknown Nostradamus, 2003].
Possibly the first of these books to become truly popular in English was Henry C Roberts' The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus of 1947, reprinted at least seven times during the next 40 years, which contained both transcriptions and translations, with brief commentaries. This was followed in 1961 by Edgar Leoni's remarkably dispassionate Nostradamus and His Prophecies, which is universally regarded even today as by far the best and most comprehensive treatment and analysis of Nostradamus in English prior to 1990. After that came Erika Cheetham's well-known The Prophecies of Nostradamus, incorporating a reprint of the posthumous 1568 edition, which was reprinted, revised and republished several times from 1973 onwards, latterly as The Final Prophecies of Nostradamus. This went on to serve as the basis for Orson Welles' celebrated film/video The Man Who Saw Tomorrow. Apart from a two-part translation of Jean-Charles de Fontbrune's Nostradamus: historien et prophète of 1980, the series could be said to have culminated in John Hogue's well-known books on the seer from about 1994 onwards, including Nostradamus: The Complete Prophecies (1999) and, latterly, Nostradamus: A Life and Myth (2003).
With the exception of Roberts, these books (and their many popular imitators) were almost unanimous not merely about Nostradamus' powers of prophecy, but also about various aspects of his biography. He had been a descendant of the Israelite tribe of Issachar; he had been educated by his grandfathers, who had both been physicians to the court of Good King René of Provence; he had attended Montpellier University in 1552 to gain his first degree: after returning there in 1529 he had successfully taken his medical doctorate; he had gone on to lecture in the Medical Faculty there until his views became too unpopular; he had travelled to the north-east of France, where he had composed prophecies at the abbey of Orval; in the course of his travels he had performed a variety of prodigies, including identifying a future Pope; he had successfully cured the Plague at Aix-en-Provence and elsewhere; he had engaged in 'scrying' using either a magic mirror or a bowl of water; he had been joined by his secretary Chavigny at Easter 1554; having published the first installment of his Propheties, he had been summoned by Queen Catherine de Médicis to Paris in 1555 to discuss with her his prophecy at quatrain I.35 that her husband King Henri II would be killed in a duel; he had examined the royal children at Blois; he had been buried standing up; and he had been found, when dug up at the French Revolution, to be wearing a medallion bearing the exact date of his disinterment.
From the 1980s onwards, however, an academic reaction set in, especially in France. The publication in 1983 of Nostradamus' private correspondence [Dupèbe, Jean, Nostradamus: Lettres inédites, 1983] and, during succeeding years, of the original editions of 1555 and 1557 by Chomarat and Benazra, together with the discovery of much original archival material [Leroy, Dr Edgar, Nostradamus, ses origines, sa vie, son oeuvre, 1972] [Brind'Amour, Pierre, Nostradamus astrophile, 1993] revealed that much that was claimed about Nostradamus simply didn't fit the documented facts. The academics [Leroy, Dr Edgar, Nostradamus, ses origines, sa vie, son oeuvre, 1972] [Brind'Amour, Pierre, Nostradamus astrophile, 1993] [Randi, James, The Mask of Nostradamus, 1993] [Lemesurier, Peter, The Nostradamus Encyclopedia, 1997] pointed out that not one of the claims just listed was backed up by any known contemporary documentary evidence. Most of them had evidently been based on unsourced rumours retailed as 'fact' by much later commentators such as Guynaud (1693) and Bareste (1840), on modern misunderstandings of the 16th-century French texts, or on pure invention. Even the suggestion that quatrain I.35 had successfully prophesied King Henri II's death did not actually appear in print for the first time until 1614, 55 years after the event [Brind'Amour, P: Nostradamus astrophile, 1993] [Lemesurier, The Unknown Nostradamus, 2003].
On top of that, the academics [Lemesurier, Peter, The Nostradamus Encyclopedia, 1997] [Randi, James, The Mask of Nostradamus, 1993] [Wilson, Ian, Nostradamus: The Evidence, 2002], who themselves tend to eschew any attempt at 'intrepretation', complained that the English translations were usually of poor quality, seemed to display little or no knowledge of 16th-century French, were tendentious and, at worst, were sometimes twisted to fit the events to which they were supposed to refer (or vice versa). None of them, certainly, were based on the original editions: Roberts had based himself on that of 1672, Cheetham and Hogue on the posthumous edition of 1568. Even the relatively respectable Leoni had had to admit on his page 115 that he had never seen an original edition, and on earlier pages had had to indicate that much of his biographical material was unsourced.
However, none of this was originally known to most of the English-language commentators, purely by function of the dates when they were writing and, to some extent, of the language it was written in. Hogue, admittedly, was in a position to take advantage of it, but it was only in 2003 that (largely on the basis of Lemesurier's Nostradamus Encyclopedia [Lemesurier, P: The Nostradamus Encyclopedia, 1997] ) he started to admit that some of his earlier biographical material had in fact been 'apocryphal'. Meanwhile the scholars [Lemesurier, The Unknown Nostradamus, 2003] were particularly scathing about later attempts by some lesser-known authors (Hewitt, 1994; Ovason, 1997; Ramotti, 1998) to extract 'hidden' meanings from the texts with the aid of anagrams, numerical codes, graphs and other devices.
On the evidence of the many other Nostradamus interpretations that have appeared in recent years, it thus seems likely that it will be a long time yet before the findings of the scholars are more widely known among the English-speaking public at large. -- PL 16:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that this would make the main article immeasurably better. It provides the balance that was missing, it doesn't snipe at the others in any way, and I don't think anyone reading it will be inclined to belive in any of these interpretations unless they were previously disposed/determined to do so anyway. Davkal 09:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so since as long as the intial summary does a good job (which I think it now does), people can get the basics from that and then read as much or as little more as they want. Davkal 21:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Coming soon - you'll see, only 7 hours and 25 minutes left until the earth turns to flame and the antichrist rises!! - you'll see! Benjaminstewart05 15:35, 6 June 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
"With each succeeding major disaster, such as that of September 11, 2001, people have sought, always after the event, to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it...". Isn't this just an example of the extreme American POV that is so dominant on wikipedia. Sure, I do not contest that it was a tragedy for those involved, but in a global (and especially historical) perpective it was definitely not "a major disaster". Look around you, there are "major disasters" taking place all over the world each year such as earthquakes, tsunamis, famine and so on. But I guess it would be too much of me to ask for as most of the wikipedian users probably can't even point out where Africa or Asia is on the map.
George Edward Purdy interpretted Quatrain X.72 as a reference to the September 11, 2001 attacks as follows:
This is one of the few instances where Nostradamus refers to a year directly. This is generally something he avoids, and in this case he is using a simple encryption of the date. The year 1999 with digits reversed is 9111, or 9/11/01. The month listed is "sept mois" which literally means seventh month. September literally means seventh month, and is the seventh month of the astrological calendar, which starts with Mars/March, so the date September 11, 2001 is clearly indicated.
As has been graphically depicted, a great king of terror did come from the sky on that day as terrorists attacked buildings flying commercial airliners.
I believe it could be argued that the great king of Angolmois is the president of the United States who gained much support after the attacks, and launched the War on Terror.
The reference to Mars reigning happily is a reference to the god of war.
I removed "In the immortal words of Arthur C Clarke" as I don't think that kind of wording has any place in an objectively written factual piece of work. Is Mr Clarke an omnipotent being, or are the various manifestations of his work omnipotent? No. He is not 'immortal' and neither are his words. --Anon 23rd May 2006
The section in question reads:
In this and other ways, the real Nostradamus has over the centuries become increasingly unknown, and the unknown Nostradamus "real", to the point where millions of perfectly rational people today believe only legends about him and, to the mystification of the actual scholars in the field, are reluctant to believe anything else — least of all that the real man used the real, and for the most part perfectly humdrum, techniques described above to arrive at predictions that are as vague and nonspecific as they actually are. In the words of Arthur C Clarke, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. (my emphasis)
What Arthur C Clarke's quote means is that for, say, someone from the 10th century a TV set (the sufficiently advanced technology) would appear as magic since they would simply have no means of assimilating it into their understanding - the technology being too advanced and different from anything they had seen before. There is nothing in the above section that is in the least comparable. That is, the section states explicitly that Nostradamus used humdrum methods and that people are unwilling to belive this, prefering instead to believe he used magic. It says nothing about Nostradamus' actual methods being so advanced and so complex that people cannot understand them. If the point really is that the methods used by Nostradamus were so complex/advanced (i.e not humdrum) that people cannot actually understand them then that should be stated. As things stand, Clarke's quote does not reflect in any way the point made directly preceding it. Davkal 13:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The point is not whether I, or anyone else, understands N's methods or not (I allow for all these possibilities above). The point is simply that Clarke's quote makes no sense at the end of the paragraph as it is currently written. Therefore: either, the paragraph needs to be changed to make the case that N's methods were so complex, i.e. not humdrum, that they would appear to us/me to be magic (like the TV to 10th century man); or, if you want to retain the claim that the methods are indeed humdrum then Clarke's quote should be removed. And, just for the record, N's dark occult reputation is down to the fact that he is believed by many to have obtained foreknowledge of the future by some method and not for the particular methods he used to "obtain" that foreknowldge. Davkal 16:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Reading the paragraph preceding the quote carefully, it relates to the current belief of many people that N's methods were magic. Specifically, "millions of perfectly rational people today believe only legends about him", which establishes the subject of the following observation. Obviously N's technologies are not advanced compared to those of modern times, hence the quote (and most of the above argument) is irrelevant to this paragraph. Erg0 03:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Erg0 has it spot on. The point is about what the paragraph currently says, and not about what what it might say. And as things stand the paragraph says pretty much that people (today) still choose to believe he used magic rather than accepting the more mundane explanations on offer. In such a context a quote such as "people always prefer a good mystery over the truth anyday" might be appropriate but Clarke's quote doesn't mean that at all. Therefore either remove Clarkes quote and choose a more suitable one, OR, if Clarke's quote is to be used then the preceding paragraph must be changed to something like PL is now arguing. That is, that "his 'comparative horoscopy' (and its associated hardware) was a technology far more sophisticated than most people today can imagine". But the paragraph in question, as noted, says the opposite of that now, it says his methods were mundane! Davkal 12:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
"Since the time of publication of the book, a virtual cult has grown around Nostradamus and his Propheties. With each succeeding major disaster, such as that of 9/11, people have sought (always after the event) to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it — usually taking considerable liberties either with the original text or with the event itself. Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance."
This seems to be very biased against Nostradamus - TheOtherFonz 18:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
No, I would agree that that part is biased. "..(always after the event)..." is a false statement, since it has been stated by others on this page that some believers in Nostradamus's prophecies believed before 9/11 that there would be an attack in New York form the Middle-East. The last sentence, "Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance," also seems to be false because of this. Even though those believers thought that the attack would use missles, they still accuratley "predicted" an attack in New York from the Middle-East. - nonimus 2006-05-21 02:25 (UTC)
I don't think an encyclopedia is the correct place to put forward personal views about things. The simple fact is that that some people have made predictions prior to certain events based on Nostradamus' writings (9/11) and some other people claim those predictions are not good/specific enough to count as genuine predictions at all. How specfic things need to be, however, is a matter of personal taste and therefore neither point should be cited as fact. In addition, there is a perfectly reasonable way of putting both sides of this debate into an article without claiming that one is correct. For example, "Supporters of Nostradamus have identified numerous quatrains which they claim predict many important world events, while critics argue that in almost all cases the association between the quatrain and the "predicted" event is made after the fact and that in those rare cases (e.g. 9/11) when a prediction is made prior to the event the claims are so general that they have no real predictive value etc. etc.". In this way the article can cover the facts about Nostradamus and the current viewpoints concerning his abilities without presenting those viewpoints as fact. As things stand, the claim that "to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict an event in advance" is simply wrong, since it lacks the caveat "to everyone's satisfaction" or something of the sort.
Two further points. Firstly, I am not an authority on Nostradamus, but as I understand things Nostradamus rose to prominence during his lifetime specifically on account of the fact that Queen Catherine de Medici intrepreted his writings as correctly predicting the death of her husband, and some aspects of the manner of his death, prior to his death. This may not be true, but if it is then we have at least one case where a specific interpretation was made prior to the event.
Secondly, I am unaware of the rules and regulations governing predictions, but it seems to me that the only thing necessary for a prediction to be a prediction is that it accurately predicts an event prior to the event and not that it is necessarily correctly interpreted by others as predicting that event prior to the event. If a clear case can be made that x accurately predicts y then whether it was noticed that x predicts y prior to y happening is largely irrelevant. All failure on this point alone could mean is that the predictions are not much good as warnings or some such thing, but they may still be accurate predictions nonetheless. The question that would decide this point would then become: are the predictions so vague, or so likely (there will be war in the East at some point) as to not really count as a predictions in the strong sense at all. And while this latter point is addressed above, it is very different from the bald assertion that predictions must be perfectly clear to all and sundry prior to the event to count as a prediction at all. After all, if we really are dealing with an ability to gain knowledge of the future by means unknown, then we are in no position to place a priori constraints on the manner in which that knowledge comes to us. Davkal 05:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Davkal
I think the length of the debate in both this section and the "Does not Conform to NPOV" section, clearly shows that it was not written with a Neutral Point of View, but clearly from the non-believers position.
ProdigalSon
08:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you to User:81.240.58.215|81.240.58.215. The negative responses from others, however, do not address the points raised so I shall try to clarify them. Firstly, it is simply not true that nobody has made a succesful prediction using Nostradamus' quatrains, and; secondly, even if it was true it would be irrelevant. This is the reason the statement relating to this claim should either be removed or amended. On the first point, there is, for example, the 9/11 prediction, and I, myself, have predicted using quatrain (pick any quatrain you like) that there will be a FIFA World Cup in Germany this summer (I have even predicted the teams involved, the times of the matches etc. etc.). What is in doubt here, what is a matter of opinion rather than hard fact, as almost everyone in favour of keeping/amending the text agrees, is whether the predictions made are specific enough (in the case of my World Cup prediction surely yes, in the case of 9/11 maybe) or derive clearly enough from the source (in the case of my World Cup prediction clearly not - the picking of any quatrain sort of gives the game away, or in the case of 9/11 maybe) to demonstrate any predictive power in the writings of Nostradamus. But, as noted, this is a matter of personal taste. And the point here is that nobody can rightly lay claim to be official judge of what is and what is not specific enough to count as a genuine prediction given what little we know about the form that foreknowledge of the future would take, if it exists at all. Even if you don't buy any of that, there is still the second point concerning the question of where the claim that it is necessary to correlate a prediction with an event prior to that event gets its importance. The point here again being that given what little we know about the form that foreknowledge of the future would take we simply cannot neutrally place such demands upon prediction. In summary, to insist upon such demands as, e.g., using "all" the elements in a quatrain in one prediction, or to discount the 9/11 prophecy for not having dates (and if it had dates we would then presumably need times of the day and the highjackers' names as well!), or to demand a priori correlation is like saying "of course, none of the proponents of the theory of evolution have succesfully managed to produce any birth, death or marriage records from the jurassic period" which, even being true, is hardly neutral. In both cases, then, it is this placing of constraints that are by no means agreed upon that means that any conclusions drawn (no succesful predictions yet made) are themselves non-neutral and should not be stated as neutral fact. And, given that there are readily available literary devices for dealing with such things, for example, caveats such as "it is argued that...", the resistance to even this simple change seems to me to call into question the neutrality of the article still further. Let us ask, why is this opening section really there: to inform the reader neutrally about Nostradamus (including, if you like, informing them about the debate concerning his predictive powers), or to present judgements about Nostradamus and his commentators from one particular (even if it is correct) standpoint as neutral fact rather than as judgements. Davkal 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)davkal
1. In your first point you make my point for me - excellent. The opening passage passes judgement. Please label it as such with an appropriate caveat or remove it. 2. In your second point you completely ignore my claim that your are not the appointed judge of specificity relating to predictions therefore you are in no position to state categorically that such interpretations/predictions are not of 9/11. That is your opinion, and the best that can actually be said is that if the predictions/interpretations are of 9/11 then they are not exact. Given this the documentary which included the "9/11 predictions" can be cited as the case where a prediction was made prior to an event. 3. I do not see why it should cause so much alarm to insert something like "it is claimed" before a claim rather than to just have the claim stated there as if it were a documented fact rather than a point of some debate. 4. If you look at the actual text in the article "Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance" you will see that it does not even make any reference to specificity re the details of the event (the point you now appear to be arguing, instead it says "any event whatsoever", and in light of the 9/11 predictions this seems just plainly false. Alternatively, if what is meant in the article is that nobody has verified that a prediction has come true prior to the event then, given the impossibility of such an enterprise (discounting validation through further prediction) this should really be made clear since I doubt many readers will guess that the mere claim that nobody has done the impossible is what is being made. Davkal 16:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
For you Jim, as the song says: I predict a diet!
Davkal
18:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not suggesting my comments be included in the article so whether or not they are original research (they're not really in any event) is irrelevant. My main points, as stated (and not yet addressed) are: a) opinion, even opinion from primary academic sources, particularly where they are judgements should have caveats such as "it is claimed", or it has been argued" or "critics maintain" or some such thing to at least demonstrate to the reader that someone has claimed something rather than it being a matter of documented fact in the same way as someone's date of birth for example. It just seems to me, and others (see above and below) that this maks the article appear biased and these caveats would, I think, go a long way to addressing this point; and b) the points in question, due to their nature, cannot in any event be seen as documented fact - that is, the appropriate amount of specificity for a prediction to count as a prediction is a matter of personal taste and no one, not even the most informed commentator on Nostradamus, is in any position to be considered the sole judge of this. This is why the "whatsoever" statement needs to be amended. If you see below I have attempted a rewriting of the second paragraph which, while fairly hastily done, I think better covers the points made without the contentious stuff that many on this page feel is wrong and have been trying to point out in a reasonable fashion.
One further point. As noted above, many on this page have been trying to point out things in a perfectly reasonable fashion and the responses from you (PL and Jim) to anyone who disagrees with you have constantly involved personal sleights, questioning of intelligence, smart-arse comments, questions/statements in French designed to show something or other, and the like. This doesn't make your answers any better or more informed or more likely to be correct; on the contrary, this makes you look like silly little schoolboys engaged in name-calling. I have only recently started trying to contribute to Wikipedia and I have noticed this same trend in a number of other places. It seems to me that a certain level of respect should automatically be given to anyone who takes the trouble to even attempt a serious point in order to improve the content of articles. Davkal 13:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
There is a world of difference between saying "The theory of evolution has been refuted many times", and saying "Creationists claim that the theory of evolution has been refuted many times". To solely look at creationist sources and then say in an article "the theory of evolution has been refuted many times" is just plain wrong or biased or whatever. In the case of N, there are over 200 books in Japanese alone dealing with every aspect of the man - you haven't read them all, and neither have any of your sources.
Yet, you boldly pronounce that your sources have all the material that matters on any point and are therefore free to cite their opinions and conclusions as fact (e.g., no one's ever predicted anything, everyone takes liberty with the translations etc. etc.), without the caveat "X claims that...". If you can see what would be wrong with producing an article like the one on evolution then you should be able to see what many on this page are saying about the article on N. That is, it reads as a one-sided account in many places and while I can't speak for others here, I think a few caveats such as "X says..." would make a world of difference. Davkal 16:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I would appreciate some help to translate in English the below extract of Nostradamus:
Comment ilz signifioient l'homme qui auroit vescu son juste eage.
L'homme qu'auroit acomply son droit eage
Et qu'a vescu jusques au terme parfaict
Signifier nous voulant ce passaige,
Une corneille font metre en vif pourtraict
Car elle vit cent ans de bien long traict,
Cessi vray estre ilz feurent consentens,
L'egiptien an estoit de par tel trait
Qu'il contenoit par lors quatre cens ans.
Much appreciated!
Cheers,
Pete
« Th’Egyptian year = four hundred » (One year = 400) ? Very strange… There must be a mistake in your translation !!!
I'ved added this article to the list of articles that are not NPOV due to things like this, "Since the time of publication of the book, a virtual cult has grown around Nostradamus and his Propheties. With each succeeding major disaster, such as that of 9/11, people have sought (always after the event) to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it — usually taking considerable liberties either with the original text or with the event itself. Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance" it's quiet clear that this article needs a lot of work. The Fading Light 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I can't believe that you ignored the fact that I quoted part of the article that is BLATANTLY NPOV in italics. Maybe a couple of people here need some reading comprehension courses. Nor did you even bother WAITING three days before removing the NPOV tags. Also I am willing to state that not all sources can be considered accurate, did the source sited for the quote come from a site that is already critical of Nostradamus or from a neutral source? The Fading Light 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out one thing about this discussion. Jim, while I agree with you here, I don't think it's fair to judge anyone's ability to contribute solely based on their number of edits, mainspace or not. It may be appropriate to cut someone a little slack who is clearly a newbie, but beyond that, I believe a user should be judged based on their contributions and words alone. - Torgo 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the lack of distinction between "He wrote predictions of the future" and "The predictions were wrong/vague/misquoted" is the crux of the issue here. As it reads now, the article gives an uninformed reader no chance to make up their own mind. Compare to the articles on Graham Hancock or Intelligent Design, equally polarising topics, and far more NPOV. 80.169.138.156 14:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, PL, the tone of the article is in many places not remotely factual. It is argumentative and tendentious. From your lead:
Since the time of publication of the book, a virtual cult has grown around Nostradamus and his Propheties. With each succeeding major disaster people have sought (always after the event) to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it — usually taking considerable liberties either with the original text or with the event itself. Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance.
Let me assure you that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party follower of crank occult beliefs.--
Chris
16:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Just because a bunch of people believe something doesn't mean it should be presented as an equal view to fact. Lots of people believe there are alligators in the New York sewer system, but it's patently false. We can't dumb down the encyclopedia out of fear that people will (*gasp*) actually learn something they didn't know before reading.
"which consists of one unrhymed and 941 rhymed quatrains, grouped into nine sets of 100 and one of 42," Theres either 942 quatrains or the last century is only 41 quatrains long. Bit of a counting error. -- Nog64
I'ved added this article to the list of articles that are not NPOV due to things like this, "Since the time of publication of the book, a virtual cult has grown around Nostradamus and his Propheties. With each succeeding major disaster, such as that of 9/11, people have sought (always after the event) to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it — usually taking considerable liberties either with the original text or with the event itself. Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance" it's quiet clear that this article needs a lot of work. The Fading Light 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I can't believe that you ignored the fact that I quoted part of the article that is BLATANTLY NPOV in italics. Maybe a couple of people here need some reading comprehension courses. Nor did you even bother WAITING three days before removing the NPOV tags. Also I am willing to state that not all sources can be considered accurate, did the source sited for the quote come from a site that is already critical of Nostradamus or from a neutral source? The Fading Light 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out one thing about this discussion. Jim, while I agree with you here, I don't think it's fair to judge anyone's ability to contribute solely based on their number of edits, mainspace or not. It may be appropriate to cut someone a little slack who is clearly a newbie, but beyond that, I believe a user should be judged based on their contributions and words alone. - Torgo 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the lack of distinction between "He wrote predictions of the future" and "The predictions were wrong/vague/misquoted" is the crux of the issue here. As it reads now, the article gives an uninformed reader no chance to make up their own mind. Compare to the articles on Graham Hancock or Intelligent Design, equally polarising topics, and far more NPOV. 80.169.138.156 14:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article be protected, since it's on the main page? -- M1ss1ontom a rs2k4 ( T | C | @) 00:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I knew it would become a featured article soon. General Eisenhower • ( at war or at peace) 00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Somewhere on the internet I saw a translated quatrain disected and noted about talking about a possible WWIII. It had pretty considerable detail. Something about Russia invading Eastern Europe and getting as far West as Italy and a major battle in Genoa. Other than that, I don't remember much. If anyone knows what I'm talking about, please verify what I am saying. Cameron Nedland 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
James Randi has written extensively about Nostradamus. Shouldn't this article be linked to him in some way? Maybe just a mention of him? Winick88
"Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance"
I find that a little hard to believe. While I hardly ever believe in prophecies/soothsayers I was impressed at childhood by Nostradamus and his "sucesses" in predicting based on the past events. For whatever it was worth there was a quartrain predicting a nuclear attack on New York and when my brother chose to go to N. America I wanted him to go anywhere but New York, just to be on the safer side. He then finally moved to Toronto exactly a month prior to the 9/11 attack. Every time I think about that it makes me wonder and marvel at his writings (probably even mistranslations that led to me avoiding NY) that saved a life.
The translation was done by Erica Cheetam and in it says New York attacks specifically with the illustration on the cover page depicting attacks on the WTC among other things. I'm sure many who have done research on Nostradamus' work must be able to cull this piece of information and atleast prove that his prediction (with un/intentional interpretation by the modern day author) could have been partially right in this case. Anyone? -- Idleguy 09:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
oh, okay, so it's not a prediction if I predict something, and it happens. For example, later, we will have wheeled rovers on Venus, much as we do today on Mars.
When that happens, and someone (always after the fact) from my massive cult following (for the sake of parallelism let's assume I become for whatever reason bar none the most famous predicter of humanity's space exploration achievements who ever lived), returns to my trite writings to quote my sentence above, then it's not really a prediction, more like a "prediction" or a "pre-"-diction or pre-"diction", or maybe even a "pre-" "-diction". Why? Because God forbid an encyclopedia entry of a man who is non-notable (except as the most famous person with x job title who ever lived--where x is notable enough to warrant an extensive Wikipedia article) should reflect the facts surrounding the notability of the subject in question. Quick, let's all replace all the articles on famous magicians with refutations of their "magic"!
I find the possibility of wheeled rovers on venus fascinating. sonof Davkal 00:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Tone of this article doesn't seem encyclopedic. The parenthetical asides are biased and unnecessary. 24.172.255.130 23:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that the intial text keeps changing back and forth. Many suggestions have been made above but all, apparently, ignored. For example, it is clearly argued above that the use of the word "whatsoever" in the second paragraph of the opening section not only renders the claim false but also makes the tone of the piece seem biased - a sort of "that'll teach 'em" approach. I would suggest something more like the following.
"Since the publication of his Propheties, which has been continuously in print since his death, Nostradamus has attracted an almost cult following amongst his many believers who credit him with predicting numerous major world events. In contrast, most serious scholars maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus' quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power. In support of this view critics argue that to date no one is known to have succeded in interpreting any of Nostradamus' quatrains specifically enough to allow a clear identification of any event in advance."
This, I think, sums up reasonably well the current state of affairs concerning Nostradamus' popularity, his believers and their detractors. It also seems to me a far more reasonable section to include right at the start of an article about Nostradamus, inasmuch as it covers what is one of the most remarkable things about the man - his continuing popularity and the debate surrounding his work more than 500 years after his death - without the "sniping" tone of the original.
Davkal
10:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the section entitled Works reads as follows:
Since his death only the Prophecies have continued to be popular, but in this case they have been quite extraordinarily so. Indeed, they have seldom, if ever, been out of print. This may be due partly to popular unease about the future, partly to people's desire to see their lives in some kind of overall cosmic perspective and so to give meaning to them — but above all, possibly, to their vagueness and lack of dating, which enables them to be wheeled out after every major dramatic event and retrospectively claimed as "hits". (my emphasis)
This is pure speculation and or new research and should not really be included I think. Davkal 12:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
In the section on Methods which begins "Nostradamus, it should be remembered..." and which purports to show that Nostradamus denied being a prophet there are several quotes from letters etc. in which Nostradamus appears to say he is not a prophet. There are two points here. Firstly, there are no notes or references in this section suggesting that these quotes have been used before by any Nostradamus scholar to support the contention that he was claiming not to be a prophet. If no such sources exist then this looks to me like new research which should not be included. If others have made similar claims then it should be referenced so that I can find out more about this surprising claim. Secondly, the quotes do not look to me like actual denials from Nostradamus but rather look representative of a peculiarity, fairly common in previous times, where authors would deliberately use such self-effacement in the preface to books etc. This does not mean that such authors are actually claiming that their books are no good, or that they are poor authors, or that they are not prophets, it simply means that they were following the trends of the day and attempting to appear humble (before God). There is also the final quote in which it seems to me that Nostradamus is saying, in a round about way, that he is making predictions.
My point was not that he did not make the statements (the sources are all cited in the article so that much is clear). My point is that to bring any set of quotes from N together to make a point that has not been made by the scholars who have studied him is almost by definition research - reason one for omitting the section. And, given that we can explain these quotes, as you do, by saying that N was merely distancing himself from biblical prophets, and biblical prophet status, so as not annoy the inquisition, there seems very little left to the argument that he did not think of himself as a "prophet" in the modern sense, ie. as one who predicts. If this is correct, then the point of the passage may well be wrong (which in turn may account for nobody having made it before) - reason two for omitting the section. Davkal 19:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Jim, awa n boil yer heid, I don't need to do any further research to know what "research" means. And that is one of my main points, which are not ludicrous but very straightforward. They are: 1) if the theory that N actively denied he was a prophet (or was making predictions) is in the literature on N then a note should be included letting me (and others) know who said this. 2) If this claim is not made in the literature, then drawing together a set of quotes from N to make a new point is almost the definition of new research. And 3) the quotes used do not look to me like actual denials; rather, they look like a combination of humbleness (in keeping with the times) and N's attempts to cover his back from the inquisition (which is what PL seems to suggest). Morever, in the final quote N seems to state fairly explicitly that he is making predictions. In summary; 1) if it's in the literature tell me where; 2) if it's not take it out; and 3) it may be wrong.
And, just for the record, I am in no way a believer in the prophecies of the N and I am not trying to suppress anything. What I am interested in - if you look at every point I have made so far - is in trying to improve this article. The first section, for example, to almost unanimous agreement, is now better as a result of my rewriting of it.And the facts that: a) the type of changes suggested were clearly stated in my arguments; b) I had rewrite it in line with my arguments; c)you hotly disputed all of my arguments; and d) you agreed to my proposed changes once I had written them, clearly shows just how little you understood from my arguments. I have also had a 3-day argument with you (and PL) about whether the word "mundane" means unimaginably complex - it does not.
And and, just for another record: the sun (our sun) isn't the centre of the universe. Davkal 18:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
From your article:
"He then began his project of writing a book of one thousand quatrains, which constitute the largely undated prophecies for which he is most famous today."
and
"his relationship with the Church as a prophet and healer was excellent"
I guess that these, then, (and the other 50 like them) should be removed or amended. Davkal 12:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
"Since his death only the Prophecies have remained extraordinarily popular. Their vagueness and lack of dating enables them to be claimed as "hits" after any major dramatic event."
“ | I do but make bold to predict (not that I guarantee the slightest thing at all), thanks to my researches and the consideration of what judicial Astrology promises me and sometimes gives me to know, principally in the form of warnings, so that folk may know that with which the celestial stars do threaten them. Not that I am foolish enough to pretend to be a prophet. —Open letter to Privy Councillor (later Chancellor) Birague, 15 June 1566 |
” |
(I do but make bold text - my joke above; my emphasis)
Davkal
13:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted Jim62sch's reversion of my earlier change. The question is whether "Nostradamus, born Michel de Nostredame" is preferable to "Michel de Nostredame, commonly known as Nostradamus". So, what's the answer? Did he change his name, so that his priest, say, or the guy he bought vegetables from referred to him as Nostradamus? Or was Nostradamus merely the name under which he published his books? I've assumed the latter, but if there was a formal name change, perhaps a explicit note in the text would be appropriate.-- Chris 14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
1. For para 2:
Since the publication of his book entitled Les Propheties, which has rarely been out of print since his death and has always been hugely popular across the world, Nostradamus has attracted an almost cult following. His many enthusiasts, to say nothing of the popular press, credit him with predicting numerous major world events. In contrast, most of the academic sources listed below maintain that the associations made between world events and Nostradamus' quatrains are largely the result of misinterpretations or mistranslations (sometimes deliberate) or else are so tenuous as to render them useless as evidence of any genuine predictive power. Moreover, none of the sources listed offers any evidence that anyone has ever succeeded in interpreting any of Nostradamus' quatrains specifically enough to allow a clear identification of any event in advance.
2. For last section under 'Works':
Since his death only the Prophecies have continued to be popular, but in this case they have been quite extraordinarily so. Over 200 editions of them have appeared in that time, together with over 2000 commentaries. Their popularity seems to be partly due to the fact that their vagueness and lack of dating make it easy to quote them selectively after every major dramatic event and retrospectively claim them as "hits" (see Nostradamus in popular culture."
Can we agree on these? I so, I will incorporate them into the article. -- PL 09:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the current-day value of N's estate of 3444 crowns? Someone edited the earlier estimate of $300K (US) to $1 million (US). Given the vagaries of price comparisons, should we even include a direct equivalent?
"Crown" may refer to an écu couronné comprising 60 sols, like the Louis XIII écu. If that's so, and the estimate here of 1 sol:$50 is valid, then the estate was worth slightly over 10 million dollars. Not bad for a best-selling author, but not a figure I would trust. Does anyone have a better-documented estimate?-- Chris 19:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Are the two examples (the Jewish homeland and the Civil war) now cited in the opening section supposedly predictions made in advance by interpreting Nostradamus' quatrains, or merely predictions from completely different sources. I have briefly checked the links but can find no mention of N. If they are not predictions based on the writing of N then surely they have no place here. Davkal 20:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is editor "PL" (who obviously is Peter Lemesurier) engaging in blanket reversions of legitimate edits without comment or rationale? Twice I renamed the (very) poorly named heading "The role of interpretation" to 'Skeptical views of Nostradamus' prophecies' which describes its section far more lucidly and succinctly than the previous heading. Both times PL simply reverted without comment. Despite your status as a publisher of books on the subject of Nostradamus [1] you would do well to disabuse yourself of the notion that you seem to hold that since you may have written a portion of an article you 'own' it. -- Deglr6328 05:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
PL, your proposal to blanket-revert over 100 recent edits by dozens of editors, the vast majority well-meaning contributions, is not acceptable and is disrespectful of these other Wikipedians. If you do this again, it will have to go to mediation.
There is no reason why we cannot work together on this article. As I've argued before (and I think my view represents the consensus of commentators), this generally good article is marred by a florid and opinionated style that is far from the NPOV ideal. (This is not to say that such a style doesn't have its place - where would we be without Thomas Carlyle?) As such, the article required, and still requires to some degree, a fairly extensive but superficial stylistic edit. This is apart from some minor problems with sourcing and organization of the sort that are found in many good articles.
I would be happy to work with you, Jim62sch, Deglr6328, and other contributors to further improve this article. To help cool things down, I won't object if you want to roll back to Kinneyboy90's edit of 08:47, 1 June 2006 - that's the one immediately preceding your first blanket revert. Let's try to work consensually from this point onwards, recognizing, of course, that neither you nor anyone will necessarily approve each and every edit.-- Chris 13:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Do not change the name of this section. •Jim62sch• 21:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
On of the things that concerns me about this article on a general level is the amount of references to the work of Peter Lemesurier - the discredited "pyramidiot" who claims amonst other things, as far as I understand his ludicrous ramblings, that the Great Pyramid at Giza has prophecies built into its architechture including the prediction that human beings will no longer have need of their mortal bodies sometime in the late fourth-millenium AD. I think any article making reference to the work of such an author should make mention of the fact that he is widely regarded as a crank among the academic/scientific community. Here, for example, is a review of one of his books as promoted on his own website. GODS OF THE DAWN 'The message of the.pyramids and the true Stargate mystery'. Basing itself on Lemesurier (1. above), Bauval, Hancock et al., this proposes that the Egyptian pyramids are in fact star-markers summoning us to an eventual encounter with some vastly superior intelligence in the region of Orion, rather along the lines of the monolith in '2001'
Hmmn, yes! Perhaps his animosity to N's prophecies is because they don't agree with his own. N's supposed successes being merely the result of after-the-fact chicanery performed on vague and nebulous quatrains, whereas Lemesurier's predictions are based on crystal-clear, no interpretation needed, stone blocks. As Groucho Marks said to the author "when I picked up your book I didn't stop laughing until I put it down - I aim to read it someday". Davkal 12:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll wait until after the supposed "eventual encounter with some vastly superior intelligence in the region of Orion" has taken place (maybe you could shed some light on how long I'll need to wait) and then write Mr Lemesurier a letter of apology shall I.
Also, were you there when Lemesurier delivered his lecture in French (in French mind you) at the House of Nostradamus hairdressing salon on the prophetic significance of late 20th century hairstyles. I ask because I have heard it argued that the resurgence in popularity of the mullet has been decoded and points to a possible meeting with unknown ocean intelligences in 4178 AD - rather along the lines of the film The Abyss. Davkal 16:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I have shown myself to be a pompous ass haven't I - the kind who would lapse in etymological arguments at the drop of a hat rather than just accept that I had made a mistake. I feel so chided - it's almost as if the super intelligence from (somewhere in the vicinity of) Orion had come down (up?) to Earth to tell me off in person. And, just in case you're listening Magnus Orion Magnusson, 1) caveats such as "it is claimed" or "X has shown that" should be placed before statements of opinion, however authoritative the (lack of) sources are - or irrespective of how many of your own books you're trying to sell (I knew all the time); new research means roughly (ie. exactly) new research, and mundane doesn't mean so complicated that someone might mistake it for magic. So, off you go back to Orion's Trousers and don't come back until your English is as good as your moyen francais (as I believe it is rather than, as you would have it, francais moyen). Good night, God Bless, and buy British! Vive le Cheetham Erica! Davkal 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
"Quite" erm, well, oh yes: in the original Greek it was quite common to move an "e" from the middle of the word to after what would normally be the last letter - so any Greek scholar would easily have seen that the word was supposed to be "quiet". There is a fundamental difference between a typo (your jottings above are full of them, and I have never stooped so low as to condemn you for that) and a simple failure to understand the meaning of words. And, was I really bustin' dude? Davkal 09:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have shown above, on numerous occasions, that the Clarke quote did not fit (I presume this is why it has now been removed). The fact that you still fail to see why demonstrates everything that needs to be shown about your understanding of basic English. A quote following a paragraph should emphasise the point made in the paragraph and should not make some quite different point, or worse, illustrate a contradictory point. This is why Clarke's quote about unimaginably complex technology appearing magical is so ludicrous when chosen to emphasise the point that the mundane methods used by N are not accepted by a modern audience because of a craving for magic. In addition, you (and PL) have been abusive to virtually everyone who has attempted a criticism, however slight, of the article. You have not demonstrated an even cursory level of respect for the views of others. You have engaged endlessly in disingenuous equivocation. You have peppered almost every response with ad hominem attacks. And you have demonstrated an almost total inability to construct a logically sound argument. I urge you to re-read some of the things you have written on this page and then make the appropriate apologies to all those you have needlessly tried to offend - irrespective of whether they actually took offence. Davkal 11:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Lemesurier writes in a fluent style and manages to include a great many hard facts about the latest issues discussed among scholars in the field without burdening his book with scientific jargon. No doubt this is a fine piece of work, putting together a great number of sources used by the prophet and original works by Nostradamus so far not published in English. Dr Elmar Gruber (leading German Nostradamus expert, and one of the article's other academic sources)
I purchased this biography for an assignment I have to do. As a high school student this book was hard for me to understand. The author of this book is a famous nostradamus critic that knows and did a lot of research and its shown in the book. I would give this book 4 stars if it was a bit more exciting. A young Amazon reader
Here is, finally, a biography of Michel de Nostredame that is based on objective research. The amount of information presented in this biography, and its accompanying appendices (which include translations of Nostradamus' lesser-known writings), clearly indicates that Lemesurier has conducted a considerable amount of research in order to produce this fascinating and very different book on Michel de Nostradame. A history of the man himself is presented along with supporting correspondences and publications from Nostradamus' lifetime, a few of which would come as quite a shock to modern American "fans" of Nostradamus. I would recommend this book to anyone who has a either serious in, or a mere curiousity about, the man Michel de Nostredame - AKA Nostradamus. Another Amazon reader
Published in honor of the 500th anniversary of his birth, The Unknown Nostradamus by linguist, translator, educator, and Nostradamus expert Peter Lemesurier is a comprehensive and up-to-date biography of Nostradamus, the medieval prophet whose predictions are still closely studied today. Extensively researched, filled with translations of contemporary critiques of Nostradamus' work, offering full translations of surviving documents, and much, much more, The Unknown Nostradamus is a "must-read" for anyone seeking to learn more about this remarkable figure and his metaphysical and encoded prophetic visions. Midwest Book Review
Readers seeking a balanced look at the controversial astrologer will do well to start here. Publishers Weekly
Highly recommended biography. Stern magazine (Germany), 4th December 2003 (bibliographical comment, translated)
Here is a book that tells you the truth and nothing but the truth about Nostradamus! East and West
Valuable insights into the medieval world as well as the seer’s life and work. This book would be of interest to both devotees and debunkers of Nostradamus. The Beacon
This book has the power to overturn the preconceptions and myths about Nostradamus and launch those who are serious about the subject into an entirely new direction of thought. Indeed, once again, Peter Lemesurier leaves authors such as John Hogue, Erika Cheetham etc, wanting in this field of study, by demonstrating his scholarly authority and providing students of Nostradamus with the most up to date research on his life and works. Gary Somai (UK)
If anyone in the world could discover the 'truth' about the seer it would be Peter Lemesurier. Mario Gregorio (archivist, international Nostradamus Research Goup, and owner of the main facsimile site listed under 'External Links')
A. Specialist and peer reviews:
...a major breakthrough in Nostradamus research... notably successful in translating "Les Propheties" into readable English and in giving to the quatrains a more true meaning instead of the rough translations that we knew until now. One of the most impressive achievements is the explanation of Nostradamus's sources... a truly magnificent result. Mario Gregorio, archivist of the international Nostradamus Research Group and owner of the main facsimile site listed under 'External links'
Lemesurier's book is a significant effort to reveal the written sources underlying the prophecies of Nostradamus. He especially manages to show convincingly how Nostradamus drew on contemporary publications for implicit references in his abundant use of omens. In this way Lemesurier reveals where Nostradamus really took his "inspiration" for many of his prophetic verses. This book represents one more substantial step in the critical evaluation of the work of the famous Renaissance prophet. Dr Elmar R. Gruber, leading German Nostradamus expert and one of the article's other academic sources
Peter Lemesurier is well known in the uneasy world of Nostradamians as a conscientious and accurate researcher. Probably his strongest point is that he investigates the Prophecies of Nostradamus in the context of the time when they were composed. His translation of the quatrains is based on an impartial analysis of 16-century-related materials and strict observance of the available historical sources. Alexey Penzensky, prominent Russian Nostradamus scholar, and editor of books on Nostradamus
An excellent edition of Nostradamus's Prophecies based on the original editions (Lyon: 1555, 1557 and 1568) with their translations, and especially its research into the textual and iconographic sources (including the famous Mirabilis Liber). This new opus of Peter Lemesurier will be just as helpful to the researcher as it will intrigue the newcomer and interest him in the universe of the Provençal prophet. Dr Patrice Guinard, Director, Centre Universitaire de Recherche en Astrologie (CURA), of whose site (listed under 'External links') he is the owner
B. Media review
A revelation. I am amazed by the translations’ objectivity and Lemesurier’s refusal to interpret the prophecies beyond what the text itself suggests. The handsomely produced book is a supremely important volume to stock in your store. New Age Retailer
Fantastic look into the life of the most famous prophet of all time. From his Family Tree to his will, his preminitions and the translations. Not sure what happened to some of them though. dkzopstaker (Amazon UK)
This book has everything anyone wants to know about Nostrodamus.Its starts off with a comprehensive biography.Detailed maps,Family tree,Portraits and more.What makes this book better than others on him is that his ideas are being challenged instead of completley going aloung with him.All quartens are translated and explained.Very comprehensive look at his early life and also on people he knew.Definatley recomended. Michaelhogan20 (Ireland)
The modern languages expert Peter Lemesurier is widely regarded as Britain's leading authority on Nostradamus. His Nostradamus Encyclopedia, published in 1997, represents itself as the 'definitive reference guide to the work and world of Nostradamus'. Ian Wilson, another of the academic sources listed
Le sous-titre est un peu ambitieux et le texte retenu pour les quatrains de Nostradamus n'est pas toujours convaincant, mais l'ouvrage est superbement illustré et propose une très utile concordance des Prophéties. Prof Bernard Chevignard, Department of Language and Communication, University of Burgundy, Dijon, and another of the article's academic sources, in Presages de Nostradamus, 1999, p.470)
--
PL
09:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, you may have demonstrated that Lemesurier is less of a crank re N that he seems to be re his other works (I would not, however, put too much faith in Amazon books reviews as it is common knowledge that may of these are written by the authors themeselves). Two further things concern me though: firstly, some of the reviews here seem to be from others who are cited in the sources; and secondly, there are a few obvious others who are not cited in the sources - e.g, Erica Cheetham and John Hogue (both of whom have some excellent reviews on Amazon and are two of the most popular authors of books about N). In tandem, these concerns suggest the following point: the article itself is fundamentally biased. It is an article based primarily on the work of one author (and possibly, I don't know, a small clique of N friends) and is solely designed to represent their view of N rather than to provide a balanced account of N, his work, and any current debate concerning N. At virtually every stage, then, where the article moves away from undisputed territory (e.g N's date of birth), I believe it is clearly in breach of the Wikipedia rules governing NPOV. That is, where debates exist - even if one view is considered dominant or popular or more scientific/academic - debate should be presented as debate. As things stand this simply cannot be said about the article. Also, please note that it is no answer to this concern to merely point out that all an article can do is reflect the "academic" sources it is drawn from, since my point is that these sources have been cherry-picked to agree with the primary source: Peter Lemesurier. I further think that this article has been written with the express purpose of promoting the work of Lemesurier as the definitive commentator on N. As such I think it should be removed pending an investigation of the motives of the author(s). Davkal 16:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
You say Cheetham is a fraud, I say you and PL are frauds. I say Lemesurier is a fraud. I say all the sources cited in the article are part of a small mutual back-slapping clique that is in no way representative of the academic views on N currently available. And, when you say you would have "not have gotten involved", I simply don't believe you. You are one out of the two people (along with PL) that I am accusing of hijacking this article for either prestige or material gain. Davkal 00:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Guetturda; what you do is this: you write an article citing yourself as the only reliable English language author on a popular topic and fail to mention any other authors whether popular or not. You then provide a link to your website (and nobody else's) where your books are available for sale. In other words you use Wikipedia as a form of advertising without having to pay for it. Davkal 22:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Jim, if you see below, you will see that in essence most of the claims here have been corroborated by PL (i.e., the claims minus the inflammatory language). For example, several scholars who disagree with Lemesurier et al (described by PL as a "few mavericks") have not had their views represented nor are they cited in the sources. This is in clear contradiction of Wikipedia rules governing NPOV. In addition, PL has stated explicitly, also contrary to Wikipedia rules, that sources who are not considered academic enough (by PL) have likewise been excluded. What this means is the article is written from one point of view (not even the sole academic view) and in cases where a contrary view is raised it is raised merely to be discarded in the same sentence. I have, however, temporarily removed the POV flag placed on this article today since PL has agreed to rewrite part of the article in order to take account of these complaints. A,LYAOAAIFOWYLACRAKYFHI Davkal 22:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
My point about frauds is that it is easy to say such things. (You say Cheetham is a fraud, I say you are frauds.) My main point though is that I simply do not believe either of you are acting in good faith re this article. As I have said, I do not believe that the sources you cite are necessarily independent of each other or necessarily reprsentative of the wider academic view of N. Instead I believe them to have been cherry-picked to support the views of Lemesurier. (The number of times the argument that "we can only go by what is in the sources" has been used is what leads me to this belief.) I have never claimed to be a Nostradamus scholar, but neither do I need to be an scholar of evolution to smell a rat if all the sources cited are, or seem to be, creationist. I think the article should be referred, if such a thing is possible, to allow an appraisal of the sources. One reason being that even if Hogue or Cheetham's books are not used to provide any quotes etc., they should be mentioned in the article listed in the sources as two of the most widely-read commentators on N. As things stand, they merely appear not to exist and this I know to be false. Davkal 12:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I will give one further example of why I think this article fails Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia rules state that all viewpoints (except extreme minority viewpoints) should be presented. This does not mean that they should all be given the same weight or that they should all be considered equally valid. Now, from the little I do know about N, I know that a significant view is that N's writings need to be "decoded" insome way and that a face value translation will not reveal what he was trying to say. This view is represented nowhere in the article. All this is mentioned is that would be code-breakers are prone to error - that this point is made seems to suggest that I am right in my assumption that such a view exists. But, who are these would be code-breakers, what is the code they think is there, how have they endeavoured to break the code, what evidence, if any, do they offer for there being a code. Nothing! Therefore the article does not present their view and is accordingly in breach of the rules. Davkal 12:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Cheetham's The Prophecies of Nostradamus (Corgi, 1973) – partly based, reportedly much to his annoyance, on Leoni – was something of a pioneering venture, in that it made available to the general public for the first time for centuries a fairly reliable reprint of the 1568 edition of Nostradamus's Propheties (minus its Preface and its dedicatory Letter to Henri II). Apart from that, though, it was stuffed from cover to cover with historical, etymological and linguistic errors, as well as being rather credulous about the seer. Much the same applied to her later The Final Prophecies of Nostradamus (Futura, 1989), which was basically just a re-hash of the earlier work, though with even more errors. Her The Further Prophecies of Nostradamus (Corgi, 1985) filled in some of the gaps left by the other two.
As Randi not unreasonably puts it in his The Mask of Nostradamus (Prometheus, 1993, pp.143-4), 'Some "authorities", such as Erika Cheetham, are not discussed here because their work is not thoroughly enough researched... Her books on Nostradamus are among the most widely available and read today, but she cannot be taken seriously. Any critical treatment of her work would take an entire volume just to correct errors.'
For obvious reasons, then, her books do not qualify for the Nostradamus Source-list, especially as the original 1568 text is now available directly online via the article's External Links.
Book Review: John Hogue's 'Nostradamus: A Life and Myth' (444 pages: Element, 2003): ISBN 0-00-714051-7
John Hogue's new biography of Nostradamus is better than I expected - but not much. As a literary biography, it is much more literary than it is a biography. The 16th century French seer's cultural and historical background is indeed extensively and lovingly described, but the rest of the book seems merely to consist of huge clouds of elaborate, typically Hoguean speculations about Nostradamus - 'he may have', 'he could have', 'perhaps', 'we can imagine that', 'it is possible that' - interspersed with only relatively brief factual extracts from the seer's known life-story. One would almost think that very little is known about it.
Hogue (a self-confessed 'rogue scholar' - p. 124) starts his book by rubbishing the purely factual approach. It is a wise precaution. For, despite his frequent professions of scepticism, various of the usual hoary myths and Old Wives' Tales - the famous stories of the Wrong Pig, the Surprised Future Pope, the Lost Dog - are duly trotted out, as are the fake Prophecies of Orval. Hogue doesn't actually insist that they are all true. In fact he describes them as 'apocryphal'. But we are still left with the distinct impression that we really ought to take such undocumented later inventions seriously, or at least to consider them as possibilities. Otherwise why mention them in the first place? As a result, the newcomer to the subject is left not really knowing what to take as fact and what as fiction.
And then there are his translations. Several of Hogue's most recent original translations of Nostradamus's prose in particular just don't correspond to any edition of the French originals that I have ever seen. Whole chunks are omitted without acknowledgement, whole sentences at best paraphrased and at worst misparaphrased. As for his translations of the prophetic verses, most of these are in my view frankly grotesque, and some are not even in comprehensible English.
Which leaves, I'm afraid, all the other fallacies and factual errors in the book. Here are just a few of the more obvious ones:
I could go on... 'Aurens' for Aurons, 'De Tornay' for De Tournes, 'Catherine de' Medici' for Catherine de Médicis, 'chateau Blois' for Château de Blois, even 'Salon en Provence' for Salon-de-Provence -- but what would be the point? However, just to add one final point, since Hogue makes so much of it, even while seeming to question it...
To Hogue, certainly, Nostradamus was an occult Master, a powerful mage with gifts of theurgy and foresight that are scarcely imaginable. The image has a long, if dubious, pedigree. I have no doubt that he honestly believes in it. But so anxious is he to reinforce this impression, that he ignores, or is unaware of, a great deal of recent research that suggests precisely the contrary, namely that the seer's real 'inspiration' lay almost exclusively in written documents - pre-existing collections of prophecies, published historical works, printed reports of 'omens' old and new... As Arthur C Clarke puts it: 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic' – or any technology, one feels tempted to add, that is sufficiently unknown to the beholder.
Hogue concludes his doorstop of a book not only with an index and bibliography, but with 34 pages of useful (but not entirely reliable) chronological tables, and no less than 64 pages of liberally-spaced footnotes, infuriatingly arranged by difficult-to-identify chapters.
That said, it has to be admitted that Hogue's latest elephantine literary masterpiece is at least entertaining and engaging to read. For obvious reasons it is not, however, suitable for the article's source-list.
With virtually ever sentence you convict yourself of breaching Wikipedia rules. The point I make is merely that these books exist and form part of the overall debate surrounding the works of N. As such Wikipedie rules state explicitly that they should be mentioned and discussed fairly. Since you admit that you have excluded them deliberately, you prove my point that the sources for the article have been cherry-picked, and that you have no intention of writing an article in line with Wikipedia rules but are writing, instead, an account of N solely from one perspective. The perspective of Lemesurier who may, or may not, be representative of the current academic view of N. Davkal 13:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not able to write such a section because my knowledge of the subject is too scant (please note I have never claimed anything else). That such a section is needed in the main article, though, follows from the Wikipedia rules stated below. In this particular, and peculiar, case it would even seem that the academic view is the minority view (the statement -not currently in the article- about what millions of people believe lends support to this). And this, I think, will make amending the article very difficult re balancing the overwhelming view (presumably wrong) with the academic view (presumably correct). Perhaps articles on, for example, Travis Walton (known primarily for his alledged abduction by aliens rather than for his abilities as a lumberjack), or the Loch Ness monster, may provide suitable templates for how such an article might best be attempted - I have not looked at these articles but merely suggest that they mirror the present case in some important respects. As noted, I do not have the knowledge to write such an article on N but, as you have consistently pointed out, you do. I therefore think you may be best placed to write the appropriate sections. Davkal 15:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have placed the POV flag on this article since the authors admit deliberately excluding discussion of commonly known issues re the subject.
Some of the relevant sections of Wikipedia policy on POV are reproduced below:
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed. Davkal 13:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
On this point you admit that at least one expert has a different opinion, you know who he is, and you have knowingly not included his POV in the article. So, now we have some experts (those who are in agreement) have their views represented in the article, one expert (who disagrees) is not mentioned or cited as a source at all, and the vast majority of commentators on N (who you consider non-academic) are neither cited nor discussed and are merely the subject of one or two throw away lines. I simply cannot see how that in any way reflects Wikipedia policy. Davkal 16:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The concerned parties are those on either side of the debate and not N, as you well know. This like saying that only the acedmic view of the Loch Ness Monster should be put forard since academy=expert and the only other concerned party is Nessie herself. Come on! Davkal 15:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
The example given in the rules makes this issue perfectly clear. Those who believe the Earth to be round are the experts (and in this case the majority) and the Flat-earthers are the other concerned parties (in this case the minority). In the case of N, the academic sources can be considered the experts (although probably in the minority) and those who believe that N was a prophet and who write about such things are the other concerned parties (in this case probably the majority). Do you really believe that writing "and those who are the subject of the article" is beyond the abilities of the Wikipedia policy writers. And what could such a thing mean in most cases given that the majority of articles in Wikipedia are about things rather than people. Davkal 16:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the POV flag. I think though that several points need to be noted. A considerable number of people (myself included) originally attempted to comment reasonably on this article only to have our intelligence/motives questioned at every turn. There was even the ludicrous sight of one commentator above going to great lengths to pre-empt an attack of this sort prior to stating his actual point. Several people on this page have been critical of the way you (and Jim) have responded to people. I am not sure if this drove the others away or they simply became bored. I have, unfortunately, resorted to much the same tactics that I had criticised earlier on. What these types of comments do is make the place a particularly unpleasant one and there seems to me to be no need for this. It also polrises debate to the extent that even extraordinarily simple matters become serious bones of contention. The end result, as I see it, is that every gets annoyed and the article gets no better. You may not believe this, but until I made the point about Lemesurier being a crank (I am actually a great supporter of von Daniken - not his theories particularly but his disregard for authroity and accepted wisdom) I had done nothing more than suggest a few improvements to the article, which, once I had actually written them, were almost universally regarded as improvements. Nonetheless, when I originally made these points they were treated with an amount of hostility I could not believe. And while I don't want to say "you started it" I do feel that the comments I ended up making were largely the result of an attitude prevalent onb this page prior to my involvement. Indeed, I made the points about the tone of some of the responses very early on in my involvement but these had little or no effect. I do hereby solemnly swear (or some such thing) that I will attempt to conduct myself in a reasonable manner, that I will endeavour to not use belittling language, and that I will treat any comment made by anyone as worthy of respect. I can only hope that all others will follow suit. Davkal 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Later... OK here's a draft, rather earlier than expected. Let me know if you think I have left anything out... I would propose to insert it in Nostradamus in popular culture, while inserting the self-same heading in the main article followed by "Please refer to Nostradamus in popular culture", which would seem to be eminently appropriate. I have inserted straight text references, which I would would hope that Jim would agree to convert into pucker reference-notes. -- PL 09:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Views differing considerably from the foregoing are to be found both in printed literature and on the internet. At one end of the spectrum, there are extreme academic views such as those of Jacques Halbronn [see his contributions to the Benazra and CURA sites listed under 'External links'], suggesting at great length and with great complexity that Nostradamus' Propheties are antedated forgeries written by later hands with a political axe to grind. Although Halbronn possibly knows more about the texts and associated archives than almost anybody else alive (he helped dig out and research many of them), most other specialists in the field reject this view.
At the other end of the spectrum, there are a large number of fairly recent popular books (backed up by literally thousands of private websites) suggesting not only that the Propheties are genuine, but that Nostradamus was a true prophet. Unfortunately, thanks to the vagaries of interpretation, no two of them agree on exactly what he predicted, whether for our past or for our future [Lemesurier, P: The Nostradamus Encyclopedia, 1997]. There is a general consensus, however, that he predicted the French Revolution, Napoleon, Hitler, both World Wars, and the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is also a general consensus that he predicted whatever major event had just happened at the time of the various books' publication, from the Apollo moon landings, through the death of Diana, Princess of Wales and the Challenger disaster, to the events of 9/11: this 'movable feast' aspect appears to be characteristic of the genre [Lemesurier, Peter, The Unknown Nostradamus, 2003].
Possibly the first of these books to become truly popular in English was Henry C Roberts' The Complete Prophecies of Nostradamus of 1947, reprinted at least seven times during the next 40 years, which contained both transcriptions and translations, with brief commentaries. This was followed in 1961 by Edgar Leoni's remarkably dispassionate Nostradamus and His Prophecies, which is universally regarded even today as by far the best and most comprehensive treatment and analysis of Nostradamus in English prior to 1990. After that came Erika Cheetham's well-known The Prophecies of Nostradamus, incorporating a reprint of the posthumous 1568 edition, which was reprinted, revised and republished several times from 1973 onwards, latterly as The Final Prophecies of Nostradamus. This went on to serve as the basis for Orson Welles' celebrated film/video The Man Who Saw Tomorrow. Apart from a two-part translation of Jean-Charles de Fontbrune's Nostradamus: historien et prophète of 1980, the series could be said to have culminated in John Hogue's well-known books on the seer from about 1994 onwards, including Nostradamus: The Complete Prophecies (1999) and, latterly, Nostradamus: A Life and Myth (2003).
With the exception of Roberts, these books (and their many popular imitators) were almost unanimous not merely about Nostradamus' powers of prophecy, but also about various aspects of his biography. He had been a descendant of the Israelite tribe of Issachar; he had been educated by his grandfathers, who had both been physicians to the court of Good King René of Provence; he had attended Montpellier University in 1552 to gain his first degree: after returning there in 1529 he had successfully taken his medical doctorate; he had gone on to lecture in the Medical Faculty there until his views became too unpopular; he had travelled to the north-east of France, where he had composed prophecies at the abbey of Orval; in the course of his travels he had performed a variety of prodigies, including identifying a future Pope; he had successfully cured the Plague at Aix-en-Provence and elsewhere; he had engaged in 'scrying' using either a magic mirror or a bowl of water; he had been joined by his secretary Chavigny at Easter 1554; having published the first installment of his Propheties, he had been summoned by Queen Catherine de Médicis to Paris in 1555 to discuss with her his prophecy at quatrain I.35 that her husband King Henri II would be killed in a duel; he had examined the royal children at Blois; he had been buried standing up; and he had been found, when dug up at the French Revolution, to be wearing a medallion bearing the exact date of his disinterment.
From the 1980s onwards, however, an academic reaction set in, especially in France. The publication in 1983 of Nostradamus' private correspondence [Dupèbe, Jean, Nostradamus: Lettres inédites, 1983] and, during succeeding years, of the original editions of 1555 and 1557 by Chomarat and Benazra, together with the discovery of much original archival material [Leroy, Dr Edgar, Nostradamus, ses origines, sa vie, son oeuvre, 1972] [Brind'Amour, Pierre, Nostradamus astrophile, 1993] revealed that much that was claimed about Nostradamus simply didn't fit the documented facts. The academics [Leroy, Dr Edgar, Nostradamus, ses origines, sa vie, son oeuvre, 1972] [Brind'Amour, Pierre, Nostradamus astrophile, 1993] [Randi, James, The Mask of Nostradamus, 1993] [Lemesurier, Peter, The Nostradamus Encyclopedia, 1997] pointed out that not one of the claims just listed was backed up by any known contemporary documentary evidence. Most of them had evidently been based on unsourced rumours retailed as 'fact' by much later commentators such as Guynaud (1693) and Bareste (1840), on modern misunderstandings of the 16th-century French texts, or on pure invention. Even the suggestion that quatrain I.35 had successfully prophesied King Henri II's death did not actually appear in print for the first time until 1614, 55 years after the event [Brind'Amour, P: Nostradamus astrophile, 1993] [Lemesurier, The Unknown Nostradamus, 2003].
On top of that, the academics [Lemesurier, Peter, The Nostradamus Encyclopedia, 1997] [Randi, James, The Mask of Nostradamus, 1993] [Wilson, Ian, Nostradamus: The Evidence, 2002], who themselves tend to eschew any attempt at 'intrepretation', complained that the English translations were usually of poor quality, seemed to display little or no knowledge of 16th-century French, were tendentious and, at worst, were sometimes twisted to fit the events to which they were supposed to refer (or vice versa). None of them, certainly, were based on the original editions: Roberts had based himself on that of 1672, Cheetham and Hogue on the posthumous edition of 1568. Even the relatively respectable Leoni had had to admit on his page 115 that he had never seen an original edition, and on earlier pages had had to indicate that much of his biographical material was unsourced.
However, none of this was originally known to most of the English-language commentators, purely by function of the dates when they were writing and, to some extent, of the language it was written in. Hogue, admittedly, was in a position to take advantage of it, but it was only in 2003 that (largely on the basis of Lemesurier's Nostradamus Encyclopedia [Lemesurier, P: The Nostradamus Encyclopedia, 1997] ) he started to admit that some of his earlier biographical material had in fact been 'apocryphal'. Meanwhile the scholars [Lemesurier, The Unknown Nostradamus, 2003] were particularly scathing about later attempts by some lesser-known authors (Hewitt, 1994; Ovason, 1997; Ramotti, 1998) to extract 'hidden' meanings from the texts with the aid of anagrams, numerical codes, graphs and other devices.
On the evidence of the many other Nostradamus interpretations that have appeared in recent years, it thus seems likely that it will be a long time yet before the findings of the scholars are more widely known among the English-speaking public at large. -- PL 16:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that this would make the main article immeasurably better. It provides the balance that was missing, it doesn't snipe at the others in any way, and I don't think anyone reading it will be inclined to belive in any of these interpretations unless they were previously disposed/determined to do so anyway. Davkal 09:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think so since as long as the intial summary does a good job (which I think it now does), people can get the basics from that and then read as much or as little more as they want. Davkal 21:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Coming soon - you'll see, only 7 hours and 25 minutes left until the earth turns to flame and the antichrist rises!! - you'll see! Benjaminstewart05 15:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)