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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
It seems every corner I turn when reading this article, I am confronted with a new sentence about how "many experts find no connections." In almost every paragraph, there is something about Nostradamus' work being corrupted by popular culture. Also, it does a very, very poor job of actually giving any account of any of his successful claims, or a list of commonly corrupted claims. This article needs major framework done to it. It reads very unprofessionally and has a bias towards the opinion that he is not a prophet. For example, the very lengthy, multiple-quote section about how he claims to not be a prophet should be removed. This article is very disappointing for such a large figure in history. 06:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, Mr Anonymous, given that the article reflects in every respect the reputable sources cited at the end, and that the 'multiple-quote' section to which you refer consists of Nostradamus's own words, it's difficult to see what you're complaining about. If the professional evidence is that he was not a prophet, and if that in turn is backed up by Nostradamus's own statements, the article should clearly reflect the fact, shouldn't it? If you really wanted it to go into Nostradamus's success-rate, it could of course be expanded to take in an analysis of his annual Almanachs, which of course (unlike the Propheties) allow assessment of his predictions against what actually happened in the years in question - but that has been done, and the success-rate unfortunately works out at roughly 5.73%! Somehow I don't think you'd want us to include that, would you? The article is meant to be based on the established facts, not on what people would like it to say. -- PL 08:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think there is, as I have said before, something fundamentally wrong with including the list of quotes in an attempt to how that N did not think of himslef as a prophet. All the responses to the points I made about this, and the point made above by "Mr anonymous", have been disingenuous inasmuch as they rely on mere equivocation over the word "prophet". The point is that it can only make sense to say N's almanacs have a success rate of any kind (even a 0% success rate) for predicting the future if he was making an attempt to predict the future, and if he was making attempts to predict the future then he is ipso facto attempting to be a prophet in the sense we understand the word now. As I have said earlier, the quotes in question merely refer to N's rejection (genuine or otherwise) of the specific label "prophet" in the sense in which that word was used at the time - they are in no way a rejection of the role we would describe using that word now - i.e the role of someone who tries to predict the future. I too think this section should be removed. Davkal 11:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
From the article "He was so encouraged by the almanac's success that he decided to write one or more annually. Taken together, they are known to have contained at least 6,338 prophecies". Explain! Davkal 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
From the article, "Nostradamus claimed to base his predictions on judicial astrolgy" (note the emphasis). And, from the first sentence of the article, N "was one of the world's most famous authors of prophecies". Now, someone who is an author of prophecies is, or is attempting to be, a prophet. As PL points out, the only reason he denied being a prophet was to protect himself from the inquisition and to distance himself from biblical (religious) prophets. If all the article is saying is this pedantic point then it is: a) misleading, since the ppint is not made explicitly and the reader will take it that it means that N is claiming to not be making predictions; b) confusing, since throughout the article it states again and again that N is, and is taking himself to be, making predictions; and c) too trivial a point to warrant 4 quotes, a picture and an explanatory paragraph. Add to that the point that the explanatory paragraph makes no mention of the pedantic nature of the point now supposedly being made and there seems very little to recommend it.
If PL's response above is genuine, then the paragraph could simply be: Of course N did not like the label prophet since this was linked to the notion of a biblical prophet. Moreover, such a claim would have left him vulnerable to the inquisition. Davkal 23:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
On several occasions now Jim and PL have made the point that N's predictions are closer to weather forecasts than prophecies. In what sense, if any, is this true? Davkal 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a simpler question. "Prediction" is a very general term: there are, as noted, weather forecasts (predictions) made by, say, Michael Fish, that would never be called prophecies; but there are also many other types of prediction that would be called prophecies - the predictions made by "the sleeping prophet" Edgar Cayce for example. The question, then, is: what reason, if any, is there to think that N more closely resembles Michael Fish than Edgar Cayce? Davkal 23:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
So Jim, is Michael Fish a prophet to those who believe in the predictive accuracy of weather forecasts? And when you realise the answer is no, you may also realise that "prophecy" objectively refers to a sub-category of predictions determined by what type of thing is predicted and/or the manner in which it is predicted rather than having anything to do with belief - even weather forecasts may be prophecies if they are made in the right way - using the innards of cows for example. And, of course the difference between the meaning of words is a matter of semantics - that's what semantic means. Davkal 23:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a point to all this, which is as follows: given that the entire argument we have been having about the use of the word "prophet" has been conducted, as demonstrated above, from a position of almost total ignorance on your part about the meaning of that word, is it not time to reappraise your position? Davkal 00:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I know and understand exactly what your last post was about. In it, you put forward your (false) view that "prophecy" is a subjective term applied to (types of) predictions as viewed by those who believe in prophecy. You also contrast this with "prediction" which you mistakenly believe to be an objective term in some way prophecy is not. As noted, this is nonsense, and so since you misunderstand the way these notions work it seems fairly clear to me that you are not best placed to continue to debate their use in the article. I therefore suggested that in light of this (i.e. your poor grasp of these concepts) you reappraise your position. That you don't understand what the word "prophecy" means can clearly be seen from your failure to understand why using cow's innards to predict the weather is a form of prophecy. The reason: that's just what the word means. Here, for example, is a definiton from a web dictionary: "Prophecy, in a broad sense, is the prediction of future events. The etymology of the word is ultimately Greek, from pro- "before" plus the root of phanai "speak", i. e. "speaking before" or "foretelling", but prophecy often implies the involvement of supernatural phenomena, whether it is communication with a deity, the reading of magical signs, or astrology. It is also used as a general term for the revelation of divine will." (my emphasis) The "cow's innards" being the supernatural aspect that turns a weather prediction so predicted into a prophecy. Davkal 21:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Dudette, I have no doubt that you are proficient in Greek and Latin - it is your English that concerns me. That's why I provided the definition of "prophecy" rather than the etymology. Or, perhaps you have your own private definition of "etymology" which means "definition" in which case then, in Jim's world, I provided an etymology. Back in the real world though, "prophecy" simply means, in an important sense, a prediction arrived at by means that would normally be called supernatural. Whether there is any validity to any of those means, or whether the supernatural actually exists, is as irrelevant to whether something may properly be called a prophecy as whether or not God actually exists is for the question of whether there are really priests.
As evidence of this, see the first line of the article "Nostradamus [...] was one of the world's most famous publishers of prophecies." This must surely be subjective nonsense since there is no evidence for prophecies since they require a supernatural component which is non-falsifiable, and wrong, and not scientific and only silly people from the past believed it and I know it's not true, it's not, it's not, it's not. Davkal 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, and as usual, the points you make are way off the mark anyway. That is, this issue that was being discussed (before you waded in with your nonsense) was whether Nostradamus considered himself to be engaged in what we would call prophecy. So, even if "prophecy" was subjective in the way you describe, it would still be perfectly appropriate to discuss whether the term, as understood now, applies to what N took himslef to be doing. The reason this is the pertinent question, is that I am arguing (although I have little faith you will understand the point) that the point of the section about N rejecting the label prophet is either misleading or wrong. This is because those rejections are: a) rejections of a very particular sense of the word that is not made explicit in the article (ie. prophet in the biblical sense) and not, as the article seems to suggest now, a rejection of the idea that he was making prophecies as we would understand the term now; and b) they are rejections primarily made to avoid the attentions of the inquisition and so may not even be that genuine in any case. The question, then, is: what did N take himself to be doing and how should we describe that now? The important point being that N did indeed see himself in engaging in exactly the type of activity, and producing exactly the type of predictions, that we would call "prophecy". For example, the article makes clear that he was taking previous prophecies and then using astrology and possibly other supposed supernatural means to amend, edit, and project those prophecies into the future. Now, given the above definition of prophecy, it is hard to see what more the man could do to be engaged in prophecy. As he says, "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. (my emphasis) The point being that someone who does all this is engaging in what he takes to be what we would now call prophecy.
Davkal
11:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Excellent argument dude, how's the homies in South Central.
I have amended the article in light of the above and have several other points to make. Firstly, the uncited cliam that "Recent research has suggested that most of his prophetic work paraphrases collections of ancient end-of-the-world prophecies(mainly Bible-based), supplemented with references to historical events and anthologies of omen reports" seems to me to be highly contentious and POV. I therefore think that some evidence for this extraordinary claim should be provided. Take for example, the fifteenth quatrain of the first century from his prophecies, the sixteenth from the second century, the seventeenth from the third and so on (I hope this is random enough for you), and show which sources these can be concieved as mere paraphrases of - or even do that with four or five from that list. Otherwise I think the claim that most of his proohetic work is mere paraphrasing is wild exaggeration. Davkal 01:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the point, rather than being racist, is merely meant to show how ludicrous you look when you adopt the vernacular of a homie (e.g, dude, you been bustin') when you are about as unhomielike as it gets. I am not sure why you speak this way sometimes, maybe you think it is clever, or maybe you think it shows you to be wordly-wise - I think it makes you look foolish and that you use it when you don't have anything sensible to say but still feel the need to respond. I also think the charge of racism here takes the biscuit, even for you and you've said some pretty daft things. That is, accusations of racism from the man who in a previous dicsusion referred to the French as the Frogs. Now dry yer eyes. Davkal 14:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Jus' came back from the rub-a-dub and couldn't believe me mince pies to see me old man 'ad been accused of racism - nearly knocked me off me plates I can tell ya me old china. Anyway, must rush, got some pie'n'mash to eat at the old Bull an Bush before a jellied eel knees up at muvver Brown's. Any old iron, any old iron, any any any old iron... sonof Davkal 22:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it time this page was archived?, possibly with the exception of the last section? Jim?-- PL 09:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanx! -- PL 08:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Am I correct in assuming this matter has been resolved and no longer requires mediation? Ideogram 14:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that! The matter was duly resolved, apparently to Davkal's satisfaction. -- PL 08:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, all has been resolved in the end. Thanks. Davkal 10:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I am pleased that my services are not required. Ideogram 05:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason that an image is stuck at the very bottom of the page? 68.39.174.238 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I tagged it POV because this article clearly has an anti-Nostradamus bias. Amongst other controversial opinions, it reads as if the French study has been universally excepted; which it most certainly has not. -- CJ 08:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
CJ, if you check out a few of the archive pages you will see many have been making the same point but haven't really got very far. It tends to take about 16 weeks to even get a typo changed - during those 16 weeks you will be assailed with all sorts of arguments about why the typo is actually a super-relevant point that you just don't like because it offends your childlike notion of Nostradamus - your motives and intelligence will be questioned, you will then be criticised for not speaking 16 different languages and the odd insult will be thrown in for good measure. Happy editing. Davkal 08:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Davkal, many Wiki users are very arrogant and unaccepting of viewpoints which don't agree with their pre-conceived biases. And I completely understand this. But, if there is to be any integrity at all in Wikipedia; this, especially biased profile of Nostradamus must be changed. But I realize it won't be easy with all... -- CJ 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, Jim, it would be best to hear what CJ is actually suggesting before completely fulfilling my prophecy concerning the responses he could expect. Davkal 10:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
CJ, you speak about a "French study" which wasn't universally accepted (I read "accepted" instead of "excepted"). Do you intend the anonymous article in the Mercure de France ? If so, what do you think about the comparison made in this article between quatrain VIII, 72 and the battle of Ravenna (1512) ? See http://ramkat.free.fr/ndel5.html Marvoir 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I've only read the English translations, but that has little bearing on the fact that Nostradamus' prophecies are believed to be true by the majority, and the text of his entry is biased to the point of being inflammatory. Personal opinions mean nothing, just because like 2 or 3 people here believe Nostradamus was a fraud, that has no bearing on Wikipedia. And since you guys believe so strongly that Nostradamus was a phony, why are you even wasting time on his Wiki entry? Just to piss off the majority of people who believe in him?
And Marvoir, I won't stoop to your level and insult you for being such a nerd that you noticed my slight spelling error, Poindexter.-- CJ 05:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As a passer-by, I must say I find the article quite well written and referenced. Claims of "extreme bias" strike me as rather exaggerated. Given that this must be a difficult article to edit, I think the editors deserve considerable credit. it would be a shame to see the article degenerate into a blow-by-blow argument about each quatrain. Banno 22:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations Jim. You have proved the power of prophecy. A few lines ago I prophesied that CJ could expect to have: a) his motives questioned (he has); b) his intelligence questioned (he has); c) be insulted (he has); d) be reprimanded for not having knowledge of every language known to man (he has). I should also apologise for the homie stuff earlier, I meant Hibby raj. Davkal 23:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
For the record, when I said the "majority", I meant the majority of people who know about Nostradamus and his prophecies. But I guess that wasn't clear to some of you... And bloodletting was a commonly used method in Nostradamus' time, so the part I edited about that should atleast remain, because in it's present form it's used as if it is evidence Nostradamus was a crackpot. Honestly, the whole article seems like it was written by Penn Gilette (if you've seen Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" television series where they criticize prophecy, you'll know exactly what I mean).
But it's obvious that many of the editors here (friends or sockpuppets of Marvoir and •Jim62sch• , I presume) have an agenda against Nostradamus and the occult, and are dead-set on making him out to be a fraud. So I'm not even going to bother editing this anymore. And I would love to tell everyone here exactly how ignorant and single-minded they all are. But it's just not worth starting a flame war.
I will, however tell everyone I know who trusts Wikipedia for it's reliability that it actually only shows the opinions of a few biased blow-hards who screw-over facts in favor of perveying their own biased agendas. Good riddance!
P.S. And to
Davkal, good luck if you continue with the fight against these "people", because aside from you, it seems they are all ignorant/uncaring about the facts and biased to the point of near-insanity. --
CJ
05:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Davkal wrote : "I prophesied that CJ could expect to have: a) his motives questioned (he has); b) his intelligence questioned (he has); c) be insulted (he has); d) be reprimanded for not having knowledge of every language known to man (he has)."
CJ questions the motives of other people (he speaks of "an agenda"). He wasn't insulted, he insulted me (because I tried to cite him honestly). He was not reprimanded for not having knowledge of every language known to man, he was warned of the difficulty of interpreting an old French text which already seemed obscure to its contemporaries. His intelligence wasn't questioned, unless the simple fact of discussing with someone falls under this accusation. Marvoir 15:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it all comes down to interpretation Davkal 15:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No arguments have been offered for the reintroduction of the dubious POV/new research which interprets certain comments by N as suggesting that he thought that he was in no way trying to predict the future. I have therefore revrted to the version which omits this. Davkal 11:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC),
Jim, PL: with every word you write you demonstrate an almost total lack of understanding about the points that are being made. I have no doubt that you speak French and Latin and Greek (and who knows how many other languages) as well as an average 14 year old native speaker. My problem with you is that your understanding of English is on pretty much the same level. My point is that, given the meaning of the words, N simply cannot have been trying to predict the future using the methods attributed to him while at the same time trying not to be a prophet. The only way such a point could be made would be if extensive clarification was provided to explain that the words were being used in very particular ways. Such clarification is not provided though and so the article is misleading to anyone who is not aware "prophet " is being ued in a very specific way. Given this, the only conclusion I can draw is that there is a deliberate attempt to mislead using equivocation. Davkal 00:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
And what's this "I suggest you take care" (I'm not going to pull a "Jim" and suggest you are threatening me with violence since that would show me to be as foolish as he is), but really. LOOK at the changes I have suggested - at no point am I saying N was the greatest prophet of all time, or that anything that N predicted has even remotely come true - what I am trying to say is that the interpretation of N's claims to not be a prophet (in the avoiding persecution/middle french context in which they were made) cannot be taken to mean that he was claiming not to be a prophet in the sense the article currently suggests - ie.e in the sense we understand the word now - ie.e in the sense of someone attemptiong to use oiccult means to predict aspects of/events in the future that we currently do not believe can be predicted by any means. Jaheseus Christ. Oh, and you'd better take care or something!
Davkal
00:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Firtly, it really would be much better if you dealt with the point I am making and not some other point(s) of your own choosing. Secondly, it's not original research, or anything like it, to ask that words be used in accordance with their meaning and that when a specialised meaning is adopted that it be clarified. That is, it is ludicrous to suggest that looking up a dictionary to see what a word means is original research - and it ludicrous to suggest that a request for clarification be made when a word is used in a way that seems to go against that definition. The more important point being that if the clarification was given (i.e. "prophet" here does not mean the same as "prophet" as used in the conclusion of the argument) then that would show the argument hinges on mere equivocation and so should be removed. None of this is original, or research, it simply comes from an understanding of English, of logic, and of faulty methods of arguing - all of which should be known to a first year student of philosophy. If you insist on sources, though, I suggest the Oxford English Dictionary and the "sections" on "prophecy" and "equivocation". Davkal 09:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The point I am making is straightforward. At present the article makes the claim the N did not take himslef to be a prophet (in the sense of someone using occult means in attempt to predict future events). As evidence for this the article cites N explicitly rejecting the title of prophet. This is equivocal because when N says "prophet" he does not mean "someone using occult means in attempt to predict future events". The reason this is obviously so is that in the last quote he says I am using occult means to try to predict the future. So, we have a section which shows N saying "I am a prophet but I am not a prophet" which is either a contradiction (wrong and to be removed) or equivocation (misleading and to be clarified or removed). The reason it can't be clarified and left as is is that if it was clarified there would be no conclusion or claim left for which the quotes were needed in the first place. Davkal 10:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please address the point I made. I am making the very straightforward point that there must be (at least) two different sense of "prophet" on the go oterwise the statements are obviously contradictory (I am trying to be a prophet but I am not trying to be a prophet), and when these senses are made explicit no conclusion like the one put forward in the article can remain. Davkal 11:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly my point (a different sense of the word) - put that clarification in the article and the argument crumbles. This is because the article suggests that he was rejecting the term "prophet" in a much wider sense than that - ie. in the sense of "one who tries to predict the future using occult means." This is what the introduction of the argument (before the quotes), and the conclusion of the argument (after the quotes) says. And this is why it has got to go.
And Jim, how many times are you going to go on about the fact that you speak French. Whoopee doo - all that means is that you are unable to produce a logical argument in several different languages. Davkal
How many times do we need to go through this. N claimed to use astrology etc. to arrive at predictions - the article says this in numerous places, nobody disagrees with it and it means that N was ipso facto trying to engage in prophecy. There is then an odd section where the article seems to suggest that he didn't take himslef to be doing this at all (the section currently under discussion) and quotes are provided to suggest that he explicitly rejected this idea (even though in one of them he says I am making predictions in an occult manner - ie.e. making prophecies) and all this is then muddied further by a play on several different senses of the word "prophet". Let us be clear, I am not denying that N rejected the label "prophet" in some sense, I am arguing that the sense in which N rejected the label is different from the sense of the word that appears in the introdution to, and the conclusion of, the section containing these quotes. The arguemtn therefore turns on equivocation and should be removed. Or, clarification of what N was actually rejecting when he rejected the label "prophet" should be provided - but when that is done the rest of the argument will crumble so it will have to go in any case. It is simply not good enough to say that all the sources agree on this because what you are arguing that all the sources agree on is not what is currently in the article.
Davkal
12:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The change is welcome, but it doesn't really do the trick inasmuch as N clearly felt he had some ability to predict the future using occult methods (although he may not have thought of the methods as occult) and says as much in the last quote of the section. We are therefore still left with the seeming contradiction which, unfortunately, is the result ofthe equivocation. The problem is that point you want to make is far stronger than any of the evidence will allow for unless you can find a quote where N says, "Oh, and by the way, I never used astrology or anything like it, nor did I intend to predict anything in the future - all I really did was simply copy down a whole load of prophecies from other people and put them together in one book". This would be, as you note, something that you or I could do, but since N didn't take himself to be doing merely THAT, there will be no quote to that effect and therefore it is wrong to have the article suggest this - that is, to suggest he saw himself to be a mere compiler and little more.
Davkal
15:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
If what you say is true then that is probably all the more reason why the section in question is misleading. That is, at the moment (except for your brief note) it roughly says that "N denied he was a prophet/attempting to predict the future absol-bloody-lutely" when the truth is, as you now suggest, far more complex than that. It therefore seems perfectly appropriate to me to tone down the definitive claim made there and instead explain (you could use all the space taken up by the quotes) that N distanced himslef from the role of prophet to distinguish between "prophet of God" and astrologer/prophet and also to cover his back from the inquisition. One might even conclude with something like, "there are so many conatrdictory claims in N's writing about his own work that it is hard to say for sure exactly what he took himself to be doing."
Davkal
16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyway - I've made my point re this particular section and can't really be bothered anymore. Most of the other changes I had in mind several weeks (years/centuries) ago when I started commenting on this article have been made and I think the article is the better for it.
Davkal
16:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
A friend of mine told me he was Jewish, this article and the talk archives don't mentioned it, so I "Googled" it. Top hit is that it's a myth (the page says his paternal grandfather converted from Judaism to Christianity). Several other pages say he was. None looked reputable. 207.172.172.221 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I have once again had to remove your proposed link, Sasha. I'm not saying for a moment that you haven't done a lot of work on it. Moreover, I think your re-arrangement of the two Nostradamus images is entirely sensible. But offering translations in five languages other than English is not appropriate here. If you wish to offer translations in those languages, then the right place to do so is in the foreign-language versions of the article listed in the panel on the left-hand side. Moreover, basing them on the late, corrupt Bareste version of 1840, of all things (!), is totally inconsistent with the article, which is based throughout on the original editions of 1555, 1557 and 1568.
In addition, I am assured that the Spanish, Portuguese and Italian versions you are offering are all very poor. The German has its merits, but is near-illiterate in places (e.g. in the first verse). The English, for its part (which is the only one that matters here) is full of major errors that are totally inconsistent with the reputable sources listed. I shall be happy to list some of them if you like. But the main objection is that your English translations of the Centuries are plagiarised throughout from Erika Cheetham's copyright The Prophecies of Nostradamus of 1973/5 (and not even on her later The Final Prophecies of Nostradamus!!) and are therefore illegal under the terms of Wikipedia.
Until you have replaced these entirely with much better and more accurate translations based on the original editions, therefore (see the existing links), there can be no question of including the link here, since it will not be (as the heading requires) 'consistent with the article'. -- PL 15:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The English translation is not by Bareste. Bareste's was an 1840 French edition (see the listed bibliographies by Chomarat & Laroche and Benazra). The translation offered is (I repeat) Erika Cheetham's copyright translation of the 1568 edition (Spearman 1973, Corgi 1975). Do please try to get your sources right – preferably before the publishers sue you! (see response on my User page) -- PL 09:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
A section headed 'External links consistent with the article' cannot possibly offer a recommended link to a site that is (a) inconsistent with the article, (b) grossly inaccurate and (c) illegal! -- (unsigned comment left by USER:PL at 04:03, 11 August 2006)
Could anybody tell me why this link should not be in the list of "external links" with the others? It has almost all the materials what all the rest of the websites have + "it is international"(now has about 7 translations and more are coming soon) and it is "wiki based"(so the additions of the information and improving the translation is allowed). So it makes this website in some parts unique among the internet.
User:PL has been said "1840 Bareste is NOT original text: mistranslations in 5 other languages are irrelevant to Anglophone readers", but there is no notice on the website that Bareste is original, otherwise - it is plaсed in the group of the "translations and interpretations" and are opened for editing. The translations may be not the best, but you will hardly find the better ones in the whole internet(for example Russian, Italian and Spain are the best known). About the irrelevance it is a silly reason too, couse the site has not only international translation, but the original texts and some of them for example are almost unique among the internet and you cannot find them anywhere esle.
User:Jim62sch has been said "The translations in at least Spanish & Portuguese are bogus", but there is no complete Portuguese version yet on the website(coming soon), and the Spanish version is one of the best known(compare Nostra Wiki with Wikisource for example).
So, could you please be so kind as to stop removing such an important link from the list. Sasha l 16:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
So anyway, i dont really overfocused in placing this link to wiki, i just want to make a good website so i apriciate any advice from you which help me to do so. Sasha l 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1. You can't be a French astrologer without being an astrologer.
2. N said: "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.." therefore he was claiming to be an astrolger.
End of! (or something else "off").
Davkal 22:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
PL, if you use astrological tables in order to "make bold to predict" then you would be, but you don't so you're not. Davkal 11:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You're an astrologer then - well done. Davkal 23:20, 28 August 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
It seems every corner I turn when reading this article, I am confronted with a new sentence about how "many experts find no connections." In almost every paragraph, there is something about Nostradamus' work being corrupted by popular culture. Also, it does a very, very poor job of actually giving any account of any of his successful claims, or a list of commonly corrupted claims. This article needs major framework done to it. It reads very unprofessionally and has a bias towards the opinion that he is not a prophet. For example, the very lengthy, multiple-quote section about how he claims to not be a prophet should be removed. This article is very disappointing for such a large figure in history. 06:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, Mr Anonymous, given that the article reflects in every respect the reputable sources cited at the end, and that the 'multiple-quote' section to which you refer consists of Nostradamus's own words, it's difficult to see what you're complaining about. If the professional evidence is that he was not a prophet, and if that in turn is backed up by Nostradamus's own statements, the article should clearly reflect the fact, shouldn't it? If you really wanted it to go into Nostradamus's success-rate, it could of course be expanded to take in an analysis of his annual Almanachs, which of course (unlike the Propheties) allow assessment of his predictions against what actually happened in the years in question - but that has been done, and the success-rate unfortunately works out at roughly 5.73%! Somehow I don't think you'd want us to include that, would you? The article is meant to be based on the established facts, not on what people would like it to say. -- PL 08:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I think there is, as I have said before, something fundamentally wrong with including the list of quotes in an attempt to how that N did not think of himslef as a prophet. All the responses to the points I made about this, and the point made above by "Mr anonymous", have been disingenuous inasmuch as they rely on mere equivocation over the word "prophet". The point is that it can only make sense to say N's almanacs have a success rate of any kind (even a 0% success rate) for predicting the future if he was making an attempt to predict the future, and if he was making attempts to predict the future then he is ipso facto attempting to be a prophet in the sense we understand the word now. As I have said earlier, the quotes in question merely refer to N's rejection (genuine or otherwise) of the specific label "prophet" in the sense in which that word was used at the time - they are in no way a rejection of the role we would describe using that word now - i.e the role of someone who tries to predict the future. I too think this section should be removed. Davkal 11:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
From the article "He was so encouraged by the almanac's success that he decided to write one or more annually. Taken together, they are known to have contained at least 6,338 prophecies". Explain! Davkal 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
From the article, "Nostradamus claimed to base his predictions on judicial astrolgy" (note the emphasis). And, from the first sentence of the article, N "was one of the world's most famous authors of prophecies". Now, someone who is an author of prophecies is, or is attempting to be, a prophet. As PL points out, the only reason he denied being a prophet was to protect himself from the inquisition and to distance himself from biblical (religious) prophets. If all the article is saying is this pedantic point then it is: a) misleading, since the ppint is not made explicitly and the reader will take it that it means that N is claiming to not be making predictions; b) confusing, since throughout the article it states again and again that N is, and is taking himself to be, making predictions; and c) too trivial a point to warrant 4 quotes, a picture and an explanatory paragraph. Add to that the point that the explanatory paragraph makes no mention of the pedantic nature of the point now supposedly being made and there seems very little to recommend it.
If PL's response above is genuine, then the paragraph could simply be: Of course N did not like the label prophet since this was linked to the notion of a biblical prophet. Moreover, such a claim would have left him vulnerable to the inquisition. Davkal 23:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
On several occasions now Jim and PL have made the point that N's predictions are closer to weather forecasts than prophecies. In what sense, if any, is this true? Davkal 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps a simpler question. "Prediction" is a very general term: there are, as noted, weather forecasts (predictions) made by, say, Michael Fish, that would never be called prophecies; but there are also many other types of prediction that would be called prophecies - the predictions made by "the sleeping prophet" Edgar Cayce for example. The question, then, is: what reason, if any, is there to think that N more closely resembles Michael Fish than Edgar Cayce? Davkal 23:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
So Jim, is Michael Fish a prophet to those who believe in the predictive accuracy of weather forecasts? And when you realise the answer is no, you may also realise that "prophecy" objectively refers to a sub-category of predictions determined by what type of thing is predicted and/or the manner in which it is predicted rather than having anything to do with belief - even weather forecasts may be prophecies if they are made in the right way - using the innards of cows for example. And, of course the difference between the meaning of words is a matter of semantics - that's what semantic means. Davkal 23:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
There is a point to all this, which is as follows: given that the entire argument we have been having about the use of the word "prophet" has been conducted, as demonstrated above, from a position of almost total ignorance on your part about the meaning of that word, is it not time to reappraise your position? Davkal 00:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I know and understand exactly what your last post was about. In it, you put forward your (false) view that "prophecy" is a subjective term applied to (types of) predictions as viewed by those who believe in prophecy. You also contrast this with "prediction" which you mistakenly believe to be an objective term in some way prophecy is not. As noted, this is nonsense, and so since you misunderstand the way these notions work it seems fairly clear to me that you are not best placed to continue to debate their use in the article. I therefore suggested that in light of this (i.e. your poor grasp of these concepts) you reappraise your position. That you don't understand what the word "prophecy" means can clearly be seen from your failure to understand why using cow's innards to predict the weather is a form of prophecy. The reason: that's just what the word means. Here, for example, is a definiton from a web dictionary: "Prophecy, in a broad sense, is the prediction of future events. The etymology of the word is ultimately Greek, from pro- "before" plus the root of phanai "speak", i. e. "speaking before" or "foretelling", but prophecy often implies the involvement of supernatural phenomena, whether it is communication with a deity, the reading of magical signs, or astrology. It is also used as a general term for the revelation of divine will." (my emphasis) The "cow's innards" being the supernatural aspect that turns a weather prediction so predicted into a prophecy. Davkal 21:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Dudette, I have no doubt that you are proficient in Greek and Latin - it is your English that concerns me. That's why I provided the definition of "prophecy" rather than the etymology. Or, perhaps you have your own private definition of "etymology" which means "definition" in which case then, in Jim's world, I provided an etymology. Back in the real world though, "prophecy" simply means, in an important sense, a prediction arrived at by means that would normally be called supernatural. Whether there is any validity to any of those means, or whether the supernatural actually exists, is as irrelevant to whether something may properly be called a prophecy as whether or not God actually exists is for the question of whether there are really priests.
As evidence of this, see the first line of the article "Nostradamus [...] was one of the world's most famous publishers of prophecies." This must surely be subjective nonsense since there is no evidence for prophecies since they require a supernatural component which is non-falsifiable, and wrong, and not scientific and only silly people from the past believed it and I know it's not true, it's not, it's not, it's not. Davkal 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, and as usual, the points you make are way off the mark anyway. That is, this issue that was being discussed (before you waded in with your nonsense) was whether Nostradamus considered himself to be engaged in what we would call prophecy. So, even if "prophecy" was subjective in the way you describe, it would still be perfectly appropriate to discuss whether the term, as understood now, applies to what N took himslef to be doing. The reason this is the pertinent question, is that I am arguing (although I have little faith you will understand the point) that the point of the section about N rejecting the label prophet is either misleading or wrong. This is because those rejections are: a) rejections of a very particular sense of the word that is not made explicit in the article (ie. prophet in the biblical sense) and not, as the article seems to suggest now, a rejection of the idea that he was making prophecies as we would understand the term now; and b) they are rejections primarily made to avoid the attentions of the inquisition and so may not even be that genuine in any case. The question, then, is: what did N take himself to be doing and how should we describe that now? The important point being that N did indeed see himself in engaging in exactly the type of activity, and producing exactly the type of predictions, that we would call "prophecy". For example, the article makes clear that he was taking previous prophecies and then using astrology and possibly other supposed supernatural means to amend, edit, and project those prophecies into the future. Now, given the above definition of prophecy, it is hard to see what more the man could do to be engaged in prophecy. As he says, "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. (my emphasis) The point being that someone who does all this is engaging in what he takes to be what we would now call prophecy.
Davkal
11:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Excellent argument dude, how's the homies in South Central.
I have amended the article in light of the above and have several other points to make. Firstly, the uncited cliam that "Recent research has suggested that most of his prophetic work paraphrases collections of ancient end-of-the-world prophecies(mainly Bible-based), supplemented with references to historical events and anthologies of omen reports" seems to me to be highly contentious and POV. I therefore think that some evidence for this extraordinary claim should be provided. Take for example, the fifteenth quatrain of the first century from his prophecies, the sixteenth from the second century, the seventeenth from the third and so on (I hope this is random enough for you), and show which sources these can be concieved as mere paraphrases of - or even do that with four or five from that list. Otherwise I think the claim that most of his proohetic work is mere paraphrasing is wild exaggeration. Davkal 01:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the point, rather than being racist, is merely meant to show how ludicrous you look when you adopt the vernacular of a homie (e.g, dude, you been bustin') when you are about as unhomielike as it gets. I am not sure why you speak this way sometimes, maybe you think it is clever, or maybe you think it shows you to be wordly-wise - I think it makes you look foolish and that you use it when you don't have anything sensible to say but still feel the need to respond. I also think the charge of racism here takes the biscuit, even for you and you've said some pretty daft things. That is, accusations of racism from the man who in a previous dicsusion referred to the French as the Frogs. Now dry yer eyes. Davkal 14:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Jus' came back from the rub-a-dub and couldn't believe me mince pies to see me old man 'ad been accused of racism - nearly knocked me off me plates I can tell ya me old china. Anyway, must rush, got some pie'n'mash to eat at the old Bull an Bush before a jellied eel knees up at muvver Brown's. Any old iron, any old iron, any any any old iron... sonof Davkal 22:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Isn't it time this page was archived?, possibly with the exception of the last section? Jim?-- PL 09:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanx! -- PL 08:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Am I correct in assuming this matter has been resolved and no longer requires mediation? Ideogram 14:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that! The matter was duly resolved, apparently to Davkal's satisfaction. -- PL 08:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, all has been resolved in the end. Thanks. Davkal 10:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I am pleased that my services are not required. Ideogram 05:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason that an image is stuck at the very bottom of the page? 68.39.174.238 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I tagged it POV because this article clearly has an anti-Nostradamus bias. Amongst other controversial opinions, it reads as if the French study has been universally excepted; which it most certainly has not. -- CJ 08:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
CJ, if you check out a few of the archive pages you will see many have been making the same point but haven't really got very far. It tends to take about 16 weeks to even get a typo changed - during those 16 weeks you will be assailed with all sorts of arguments about why the typo is actually a super-relevant point that you just don't like because it offends your childlike notion of Nostradamus - your motives and intelligence will be questioned, you will then be criticised for not speaking 16 different languages and the odd insult will be thrown in for good measure. Happy editing. Davkal 08:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Davkal, many Wiki users are very arrogant and unaccepting of viewpoints which don't agree with their pre-conceived biases. And I completely understand this. But, if there is to be any integrity at all in Wikipedia; this, especially biased profile of Nostradamus must be changed. But I realize it won't be easy with all... -- CJ 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, Jim, it would be best to hear what CJ is actually suggesting before completely fulfilling my prophecy concerning the responses he could expect. Davkal 10:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
CJ, you speak about a "French study" which wasn't universally accepted (I read "accepted" instead of "excepted"). Do you intend the anonymous article in the Mercure de France ? If so, what do you think about the comparison made in this article between quatrain VIII, 72 and the battle of Ravenna (1512) ? See http://ramkat.free.fr/ndel5.html Marvoir 19:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I've only read the English translations, but that has little bearing on the fact that Nostradamus' prophecies are believed to be true by the majority, and the text of his entry is biased to the point of being inflammatory. Personal opinions mean nothing, just because like 2 or 3 people here believe Nostradamus was a fraud, that has no bearing on Wikipedia. And since you guys believe so strongly that Nostradamus was a phony, why are you even wasting time on his Wiki entry? Just to piss off the majority of people who believe in him?
And Marvoir, I won't stoop to your level and insult you for being such a nerd that you noticed my slight spelling error, Poindexter.-- CJ 05:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As a passer-by, I must say I find the article quite well written and referenced. Claims of "extreme bias" strike me as rather exaggerated. Given that this must be a difficult article to edit, I think the editors deserve considerable credit. it would be a shame to see the article degenerate into a blow-by-blow argument about each quatrain. Banno 22:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations Jim. You have proved the power of prophecy. A few lines ago I prophesied that CJ could expect to have: a) his motives questioned (he has); b) his intelligence questioned (he has); c) be insulted (he has); d) be reprimanded for not having knowledge of every language known to man (he has). I should also apologise for the homie stuff earlier, I meant Hibby raj. Davkal 23:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
For the record, when I said the "majority", I meant the majority of people who know about Nostradamus and his prophecies. But I guess that wasn't clear to some of you... And bloodletting was a commonly used method in Nostradamus' time, so the part I edited about that should atleast remain, because in it's present form it's used as if it is evidence Nostradamus was a crackpot. Honestly, the whole article seems like it was written by Penn Gilette (if you've seen Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" television series where they criticize prophecy, you'll know exactly what I mean).
But it's obvious that many of the editors here (friends or sockpuppets of Marvoir and •Jim62sch• , I presume) have an agenda against Nostradamus and the occult, and are dead-set on making him out to be a fraud. So I'm not even going to bother editing this anymore. And I would love to tell everyone here exactly how ignorant and single-minded they all are. But it's just not worth starting a flame war.
I will, however tell everyone I know who trusts Wikipedia for it's reliability that it actually only shows the opinions of a few biased blow-hards who screw-over facts in favor of perveying their own biased agendas. Good riddance!
P.S. And to
Davkal, good luck if you continue with the fight against these "people", because aside from you, it seems they are all ignorant/uncaring about the facts and biased to the point of near-insanity. --
CJ
05:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Davkal wrote : "I prophesied that CJ could expect to have: a) his motives questioned (he has); b) his intelligence questioned (he has); c) be insulted (he has); d) be reprimanded for not having knowledge of every language known to man (he has)."
CJ questions the motives of other people (he speaks of "an agenda"). He wasn't insulted, he insulted me (because I tried to cite him honestly). He was not reprimanded for not having knowledge of every language known to man, he was warned of the difficulty of interpreting an old French text which already seemed obscure to its contemporaries. His intelligence wasn't questioned, unless the simple fact of discussing with someone falls under this accusation. Marvoir 15:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it all comes down to interpretation Davkal 15:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
No arguments have been offered for the reintroduction of the dubious POV/new research which interprets certain comments by N as suggesting that he thought that he was in no way trying to predict the future. I have therefore revrted to the version which omits this. Davkal 11:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC),
Jim, PL: with every word you write you demonstrate an almost total lack of understanding about the points that are being made. I have no doubt that you speak French and Latin and Greek (and who knows how many other languages) as well as an average 14 year old native speaker. My problem with you is that your understanding of English is on pretty much the same level. My point is that, given the meaning of the words, N simply cannot have been trying to predict the future using the methods attributed to him while at the same time trying not to be a prophet. The only way such a point could be made would be if extensive clarification was provided to explain that the words were being used in very particular ways. Such clarification is not provided though and so the article is misleading to anyone who is not aware "prophet " is being ued in a very specific way. Given this, the only conclusion I can draw is that there is a deliberate attempt to mislead using equivocation. Davkal 00:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
And what's this "I suggest you take care" (I'm not going to pull a "Jim" and suggest you are threatening me with violence since that would show me to be as foolish as he is), but really. LOOK at the changes I have suggested - at no point am I saying N was the greatest prophet of all time, or that anything that N predicted has even remotely come true - what I am trying to say is that the interpretation of N's claims to not be a prophet (in the avoiding persecution/middle french context in which they were made) cannot be taken to mean that he was claiming not to be a prophet in the sense the article currently suggests - ie.e in the sense we understand the word now - ie.e in the sense of someone attemptiong to use oiccult means to predict aspects of/events in the future that we currently do not believe can be predicted by any means. Jaheseus Christ. Oh, and you'd better take care or something!
Davkal
00:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Firtly, it really would be much better if you dealt with the point I am making and not some other point(s) of your own choosing. Secondly, it's not original research, or anything like it, to ask that words be used in accordance with their meaning and that when a specialised meaning is adopted that it be clarified. That is, it is ludicrous to suggest that looking up a dictionary to see what a word means is original research - and it ludicrous to suggest that a request for clarification be made when a word is used in a way that seems to go against that definition. The more important point being that if the clarification was given (i.e. "prophet" here does not mean the same as "prophet" as used in the conclusion of the argument) then that would show the argument hinges on mere equivocation and so should be removed. None of this is original, or research, it simply comes from an understanding of English, of logic, and of faulty methods of arguing - all of which should be known to a first year student of philosophy. If you insist on sources, though, I suggest the Oxford English Dictionary and the "sections" on "prophecy" and "equivocation". Davkal 09:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The point I am making is straightforward. At present the article makes the claim the N did not take himslef to be a prophet (in the sense of someone using occult means in attempt to predict future events). As evidence for this the article cites N explicitly rejecting the title of prophet. This is equivocal because when N says "prophet" he does not mean "someone using occult means in attempt to predict future events". The reason this is obviously so is that in the last quote he says I am using occult means to try to predict the future. So, we have a section which shows N saying "I am a prophet but I am not a prophet" which is either a contradiction (wrong and to be removed) or equivocation (misleading and to be clarified or removed). The reason it can't be clarified and left as is is that if it was clarified there would be no conclusion or claim left for which the quotes were needed in the first place. Davkal 10:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Please address the point I made. I am making the very straightforward point that there must be (at least) two different sense of "prophet" on the go oterwise the statements are obviously contradictory (I am trying to be a prophet but I am not trying to be a prophet), and when these senses are made explicit no conclusion like the one put forward in the article can remain. Davkal 11:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly my point (a different sense of the word) - put that clarification in the article and the argument crumbles. This is because the article suggests that he was rejecting the term "prophet" in a much wider sense than that - ie. in the sense of "one who tries to predict the future using occult means." This is what the introduction of the argument (before the quotes), and the conclusion of the argument (after the quotes) says. And this is why it has got to go.
And Jim, how many times are you going to go on about the fact that you speak French. Whoopee doo - all that means is that you are unable to produce a logical argument in several different languages. Davkal
How many times do we need to go through this. N claimed to use astrology etc. to arrive at predictions - the article says this in numerous places, nobody disagrees with it and it means that N was ipso facto trying to engage in prophecy. There is then an odd section where the article seems to suggest that he didn't take himslef to be doing this at all (the section currently under discussion) and quotes are provided to suggest that he explicitly rejected this idea (even though in one of them he says I am making predictions in an occult manner - ie.e. making prophecies) and all this is then muddied further by a play on several different senses of the word "prophet". Let us be clear, I am not denying that N rejected the label "prophet" in some sense, I am arguing that the sense in which N rejected the label is different from the sense of the word that appears in the introdution to, and the conclusion of, the section containing these quotes. The arguemtn therefore turns on equivocation and should be removed. Or, clarification of what N was actually rejecting when he rejected the label "prophet" should be provided - but when that is done the rest of the argument will crumble so it will have to go in any case. It is simply not good enough to say that all the sources agree on this because what you are arguing that all the sources agree on is not what is currently in the article.
Davkal
12:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The change is welcome, but it doesn't really do the trick inasmuch as N clearly felt he had some ability to predict the future using occult methods (although he may not have thought of the methods as occult) and says as much in the last quote of the section. We are therefore still left with the seeming contradiction which, unfortunately, is the result ofthe equivocation. The problem is that point you want to make is far stronger than any of the evidence will allow for unless you can find a quote where N says, "Oh, and by the way, I never used astrology or anything like it, nor did I intend to predict anything in the future - all I really did was simply copy down a whole load of prophecies from other people and put them together in one book". This would be, as you note, something that you or I could do, but since N didn't take himself to be doing merely THAT, there will be no quote to that effect and therefore it is wrong to have the article suggest this - that is, to suggest he saw himself to be a mere compiler and little more.
Davkal
15:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
If what you say is true then that is probably all the more reason why the section in question is misleading. That is, at the moment (except for your brief note) it roughly says that "N denied he was a prophet/attempting to predict the future absol-bloody-lutely" when the truth is, as you now suggest, far more complex than that. It therefore seems perfectly appropriate to me to tone down the definitive claim made there and instead explain (you could use all the space taken up by the quotes) that N distanced himslef from the role of prophet to distinguish between "prophet of God" and astrologer/prophet and also to cover his back from the inquisition. One might even conclude with something like, "there are so many conatrdictory claims in N's writing about his own work that it is hard to say for sure exactly what he took himself to be doing."
Davkal
16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Anyway - I've made my point re this particular section and can't really be bothered anymore. Most of the other changes I had in mind several weeks (years/centuries) ago when I started commenting on this article have been made and I think the article is the better for it.
Davkal
16:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
A friend of mine told me he was Jewish, this article and the talk archives don't mentioned it, so I "Googled" it. Top hit is that it's a myth (the page says his paternal grandfather converted from Judaism to Christianity). Several other pages say he was. None looked reputable. 207.172.172.221 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I have once again had to remove your proposed link, Sasha. I'm not saying for a moment that you haven't done a lot of work on it. Moreover, I think your re-arrangement of the two Nostradamus images is entirely sensible. But offering translations in five languages other than English is not appropriate here. If you wish to offer translations in those languages, then the right place to do so is in the foreign-language versions of the article listed in the panel on the left-hand side. Moreover, basing them on the late, corrupt Bareste version of 1840, of all things (!), is totally inconsistent with the article, which is based throughout on the original editions of 1555, 1557 and 1568.
In addition, I am assured that the Spanish, Portuguese and Italian versions you are offering are all very poor. The German has its merits, but is near-illiterate in places (e.g. in the first verse). The English, for its part (which is the only one that matters here) is full of major errors that are totally inconsistent with the reputable sources listed. I shall be happy to list some of them if you like. But the main objection is that your English translations of the Centuries are plagiarised throughout from Erika Cheetham's copyright The Prophecies of Nostradamus of 1973/5 (and not even on her later The Final Prophecies of Nostradamus!!) and are therefore illegal under the terms of Wikipedia.
Until you have replaced these entirely with much better and more accurate translations based on the original editions, therefore (see the existing links), there can be no question of including the link here, since it will not be (as the heading requires) 'consistent with the article'. -- PL 15:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
The English translation is not by Bareste. Bareste's was an 1840 French edition (see the listed bibliographies by Chomarat & Laroche and Benazra). The translation offered is (I repeat) Erika Cheetham's copyright translation of the 1568 edition (Spearman 1973, Corgi 1975). Do please try to get your sources right – preferably before the publishers sue you! (see response on my User page) -- PL 09:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
A section headed 'External links consistent with the article' cannot possibly offer a recommended link to a site that is (a) inconsistent with the article, (b) grossly inaccurate and (c) illegal! -- (unsigned comment left by USER:PL at 04:03, 11 August 2006)
Could anybody tell me why this link should not be in the list of "external links" with the others? It has almost all the materials what all the rest of the websites have + "it is international"(now has about 7 translations and more are coming soon) and it is "wiki based"(so the additions of the information and improving the translation is allowed). So it makes this website in some parts unique among the internet.
User:PL has been said "1840 Bareste is NOT original text: mistranslations in 5 other languages are irrelevant to Anglophone readers", but there is no notice on the website that Bareste is original, otherwise - it is plaсed in the group of the "translations and interpretations" and are opened for editing. The translations may be not the best, but you will hardly find the better ones in the whole internet(for example Russian, Italian and Spain are the best known). About the irrelevance it is a silly reason too, couse the site has not only international translation, but the original texts and some of them for example are almost unique among the internet and you cannot find them anywhere esle.
User:Jim62sch has been said "The translations in at least Spanish & Portuguese are bogus", but there is no complete Portuguese version yet on the website(coming soon), and the Spanish version is one of the best known(compare Nostra Wiki with Wikisource for example).
So, could you please be so kind as to stop removing such an important link from the list. Sasha l 16:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
So anyway, i dont really overfocused in placing this link to wiki, i just want to make a good website so i apriciate any advice from you which help me to do so. Sasha l 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1. You can't be a French astrologer without being an astrologer.
2. N said: "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.." therefore he was claiming to be an astrolger.
End of! (or something else "off").
Davkal 22:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
PL, if you use astrological tables in order to "make bold to predict" then you would be, but you don't so you're not. Davkal 11:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You're an astrologer then - well done. Davkal 23:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)