Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Theodore7 (talk | contribs) at 15:42, 18 December 2005 (→Why is this deleted each time?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• talk page archive

Why has what appears to be discussion content been placed in the Main namespace at Nostradamus/archive? --Mysidia (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a missclick. i deleted. Gubbubu 19:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, that's alright. I have listed the page for speedy deletion --Mysidia (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Er .. what?? ... or a quote proving the infinite stupidness of "skeptics"

Skeptics of Nostradamus state that his reputation as a prophet is largely manufactured by modern-day supporters who shoehorn his words into events that have either already occurred or are so imminent as to be inevitable, a process known as as "retroactive clairvoyance". No Nostradamus quatrain has been interpreted before a specific event occurs, beyond a very general level (e.g., a fire will occur, a war will start).

Er ... I think the sentence I've fatted contains a little paradoxon. How can you interpret a prophecy before an event - if you are not a prophet :-??? Gubbubu 11:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I followed that. You don't have to be a prophet to read what a prophet has written and understand it, any more than you need to be Einstein to understand his 1905 papers and act on them.

What it means is that nobody has ever, so far as is known, publicly taken a quatrain, said "This means a specific X will happen at a relatively specific time Y in the future," and then the specific X has happened at Y. (Such statements are always made at time Y+1, looking backward) If Nostradamus were a true prophet, such a proof would be a snap to do. It happens all the time in science ("the eclipse will happen at time Y") which is why more people believe astronomy than Nostradamus. - DavidWBrooks 12:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure more people believe astronomy than Nostradamus :-)). But I wanted to say that the sentence is misunderstable. But I must give four remarks:

1. skeptic's critic on Nostradamus is unworthy. If one criticises mystics, he should know what this word means. The prophet enraptures, seeing visions and hearing sounds. For example, when you experience a vision of F-14 Tomcats fliing on the sky in the XV. century, certainly you won't be able to determinate the exact date (and you will be able to determinate the exact place if you have extra big luck). So to expect exact dates is a sign of being quite new-handed in the topic of mystic divination.
2. Nostradamus didn't give dates, but often gave astronomic configurations for his divinations. This is not as exact as dates, because a given configuration can be repeated more times during a century, but even so this helps to be more exact. But this "dates" were calculated by Nostradamus's astronomic knowledge, and eo ipse admitted they can be false.
3. Some of his divinations are not quite concrete, but some of them contains names of places or hystoric persons, who were born only after his deaht. For example, he divined about Franco and the Riveras, or about a French Dauphin and the rebel baron Montmorency ... so I'm quite sceptical towards sceptical oppinions ... Gubbubu 19:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
4. Nostradamus and science. As I see, the ground concept of sceptic critic is that his predictions are general, and can't be cleared by inches. But the science can be? For example, meteorologist can predict the weather from minutes to minutes? You don't say so! Historians, politologists can be determine what will be happen in the future? LOL :-)). Don't tomfoolm, please!

And hey, "The village idiot" was "acclaimed the leader" -- twice!!! "Nostradaymus," the man who saw tomorrow (and drank no wine before it's time :)

Edit for NPOV

I changed a lot of the unproven and disputed assertions in this article to statements of opinion to bring it more in line with the NPOV policy. --Tar Heel 07:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

'Answer by Theodore7 - First of all - get this clear. I am a scholar of Nostradamus' works; have read and translated his works and am a qualified and experienced judicial astrologer. The "lot of the unproven and disputed assertions" you "claim" Tar Heel - are simply your bias. I have quoted DIRECTLY from Nostradamus' OWN writing - which are copious. He CLEARLY sets out his methods and they include judicial astrology which he mentions throughout his own preface to Les Propheties. Have you actually READ this work? I ask this because your "assertions" are based on what appears to be your own bias and not on the author's OWN writing - which you call "opinion" - while clearly they are NOT. As for NPOV policy - it does not state that you have the right to INSERT your own claims of detractors that clearly go AGAINST what the author himself has written. Read Les Propheties BEFORE entering such junk as "retroactive clairvoyance" - what is this muck? How can a person like Nostradamus, from the 16th Century - forecast BACKWARDS about world events that take place AFTER his death? Give me a break! You must think there are no scholars out here who can see through this rewriting of history that you attempt here. I can see straight through your redactions and it is not smart, nor professional of you to enter such detracting claims when the author's own writing makes it clear what his methods are. On, and one more thing: Nostradamus' childhood has been well-documented. It seems that you are one of the only one who hasn't read the numerous materials - (Th7)'

Unfortunately, you also included (if it was you!) a lot of unproven and disputed assertions of your own, including a huge amount of speculation regarding Nostradamus's astrology (on which you seem quite extraordinarily keen, even though actual analysis of his astrological output reveals -- as contemporary astrologers often pointed out -- that he was a very poor astrologer!)

Answer by TH7: - It wasn't him - but it was me. This statement of yours is also bogus. I am a qualified astrologer and scholar who teaches the subject and for you to claim that Nostradamus was a "very poor astrologer" goes to show just how uneducated you are on the astrological sciences - especially judicial astrology - which is the oldest science on the planet. Read some history first. The speculation you claim in your above statement is YOUR own. Let me ask you this then since I will not assume: are you a qualified astrologer? Do you possess the knowledge to be able to write intelligently on the astrology of Nostradamus? Specifically, Judicial Astrology - which Nostradamus practiced and wrote clearly about in Les Propheties?

plus well-known (but, alas, entirely bogus!) non-contemporary traditions regarding his upbringing, education and 1555 visit to Paris -- none of which is taken from the well-sourced academic sources actually listed.

Answer by Th7 - Incorrect. There are numerous biographies on the upbringing of Nostradamus. I've personally handled and read these documents in Europe - from WELL-SOURCED ACADEMIC SOURCES by the way. It is just unbelievable that a person like you who "sounds" intelligent could make such erronous claims. Are you serious? Who do you think you are trying to re-write history? Read the authors' OWN words. Read and study the actual biographical information on the life of Michel Nostradamus. Stop inserting your biased opinions to satisfy you sensitive sensibilities.

May I respectfully suggest that you actually read these -- especially Brind'Amour's Nostradamus Astrophile (in French -- but then you have to read French to understand most of the basic research), which is the definitive academic study of Nostradamus's astrology by the former Professor of Ancient Studies at Ottawa University, or failing that Gruber (if you know German) or, failing that, Wilson or Lemesurier, then re-edit the article (which I have re-instated for now) as you wish in the light of such actual known and documented facts as they present?

Answer by TH7: Try reading Nostradamus' OWN work FIRST before heading out to find his interpretors - many of whom are not versed in judicial astrology. These "facts" as you state here are not - they are suppositions based on conventional history that attempt to explain away the methods of Nostradamus and his biography. I doubt that you have actually read the other numerous works of Nostradamus by many French scholars versed in the history of judicial astrology in the times of Nostradamus.

The Brind'Amour in particular, which analyses his actual horoscopes among other things, should fascinate you. While it is of course entertaining to include non-factual material and hoary old myths from popular literature, it is, I'm afraid, not suitable for what purports to be a quasi-authoritative encyclopedia whose readers may be ill qualified to sort out the facts from the speculation. A separate paragraph or two clearly identifiable as covering the various myths and Old Wives' Tales might be one way to do it... How about it?

Answer by TH7: NO way! Old Wives tales? Are you kidding me? This is not a place for these tales - but for serious information. Rather than include the author's OWN WORDS - you would submit here that biased opinion and old wives tales would suffice? Incredible assertion by someone who claims to be serious about history.

PL 11:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah -- I see you're just determined to promote the particular bee in your bonnet. Fair enough.

Answer by TH7: This seems to be the case - the bee in his bonnet. I would take him much more seriously if he would actually have read Les Propheties and the Preface, which contains some of the most clear information on the reasons for the prophecies, why he clouded them, and his use of judicial astrology in his calculations. This is much better than his use of conventional assertions on the subject and what is clearly an ignorance of the astrological sciences used by Nostradamus. The man wrote about this himself.

PL 12:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're talking about PL, I simply went through and changed the assertions that Nostradamus predicted actual events to statements that some people believe he predicted events. You can go to http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nostradamus&diff=31301274&oldid=31294942 to see my changes in red. The 2nd paragraph is moved from the Quatrains of Nostradamus article to express academic and popular opinion of Nostradmus and the fourth paragraph is moved from a different section in the article where it didn't fit.

Answer by TH7: There is alway room for popular and academic opinion, but not when it is used to divert attention from the author's own works. Remember, this is not a guy who did not write - he wrote and his words should be inserted to allow the reader to form THEIR OWN judgements and NOT to express Academic and popular opinion". This is an obvious attempt to insert one's own personal bias under the cover of academic opinion. Give it a break. People can think for themselves without the re-writing of a man's OWN works by substituting it with this clearly conventional academic perspective.

I thank you for your references but I'm not really interested in astrology or the life of Nostradamus and I think you have me confused with another editor.

Answer by TH7: Sorry, it was me and not you. They do have you confused with another editor and a Nostradamus scholar at that.

The "bee in my bonnet" was that the very debateable assertion that Nostradamus predicted actual events was being presented as fact. If you know things about Nostradamus' life that are incorrect or incomplete in this article, I would encourage you to edit it, as long as you can conform to NPOV standards. Thanks, --Tar Heel 16:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies, then! I can only agree with you. However, the recent version of the article that you corrected (which I only discovered this morning) was even fuller of non-facts and dubious assertions than your corrections suggest (for the reference to which many thanks), valid though they are. In fact it was a positive disgrace to Misplaced Pages, not merely factually but grammatically, too -- so I can understand your concern!

Answer by Th7: Really? I found your entries to be full of errors, considering the wealth of biographical information on Nostradamus. And, your grammer is full of academic fat - considering the lack of education you appear to have on judicial astrology which I seriously doubt you are versed. I am very concerned about your lack of scholarship on this particular historical subject. You write as if you have NOT read Les Propheties.

In due course I would hope to restore the factual article, which I trust you will find in accordance with reason and reputable scholarship -- as well as a good deal briefer and 'encyclopedia-length' -- and correct it where you feel it isn't! It may not last long, though, as the individual concerned currently seems determined to have his say! Apologies again for my jumping to conclusions about its authorship. Best --PL 16:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer by Th7: Who are you to determine what is a factual article and determine as well what the accordance of reason and reputable scholarship is? You seem to lack any understanding of judicial astrology - which is KEY to the prophecies of Nostradamus as he states himself throughout his works. and then you jump to conclusions by actually stating that the man was "retroactive" from the 16th Century to gaze into the future? Are you serious? You say in your entries that detrators are saying he was Monday-morning quarterbacking in reverse? And we are to take THAT as a serious academic view?

It looks like we have a little reversion duel going. For what its worth, both versions seem to me to be acceptable by NPOV standards. I'll leave the debate over facts to y'all. --Tar Heel 16:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer Th7: There is no "reversion duel" going on. I have no problem with entries that follow the author's meaning in his OWN words. I also do not have a problem with healthy skeptical views either. What I DO have a problem with is a determined effort to detract from the history and words of the subject to fit into a preconceived version of the facts. Again, you can TALK and debate about the subject, but twisting the author's own words is NOT academic. Not in the slightest. And that is what you ahve done here several times. This is not acceptable by NPOV standards as well. Include the author's own words and not twist them to fit a view you find acceptable. That is NOT scholarship.

I think Theodore7 should tell us 1. which editions he has actually read and studied in the original French (1555 ? 1557 ? 1568 ?) and demonstrate the fact by comparing, say, their various versions of the same quatrain 2. which of the books listed as 'sources' at the bottom (nearly all of which, of course, quote, report and take full account of what Nostradamus himself wrote) he has actually studied, given that not one reputable Nostradamus scholar would touch most of his ideas with a bargepole 3. why he feels that an encyclopedia article should be a personal ideological manifesto rather than a balanced, dispassionate statement of the known facts 4. why he keeps insisting -- puzzlingly -- that his constant English translations are 'Nostradamus's own words' 5. why he feels that a mere encyclopedia article should include such quotations anyway, and 5. why he insists on shouting at us in Bold -- perhaps all caps would be more appropriate?

But then what't the use of arguing with him?...--PL 17:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not assert as fact that Nostradamus accurately predicted events

I'm looking at you Theodore7. Whether you agree with it or not, the idea the the quatrains predicted actual events is based on interpretation and opinion. It is not verifiable fact and should not be presented as such. Are you familiar with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy? Calling a widely held interpretation "silly" and "weak" is not 'representing all majority and significant-minority views fairly and without bias'. The paragraph you added is biased and gratuitous as both sides get a say in the second paragraph. All you are doing in the third paragraph is re-asserting your opinion that the quatrains are accurate. I'm going to remove it. --Tar Heel 17:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

:Answer by Th7: Opinon? You have not quoted the man once. He wrote a volumious book you know. Suggest you read the man's work and include balanced material. You incorrectly state that there is nothing known about his childhood. This is clearly wrong. I peronally have read biographical materials on Nostradamus on his upbringing. You say they don't exist. I will challenge that. And will win.

Absolutely! As the Misplaced Pages rubric says, 'content must be based on verifiable sources'. Perhaps Theodore7 would care to tell us on which 'verifiable sources' he bases his statements? That might include the French originals (see Links), the reputable French research (see Brind'Amour, Chevignard and Dupèbe under Sources), the academic works based on it and the original archives. It would not include wishful thinking or popular pot-boilers such as Hogue and Cheetham! --PL 17:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer by Th7: And I am going to report you. Policy does not mean that you have the right to make assertions that go AGAINST the author's own writing. It is just outrageous that you think you have the right to enter claims by third parties while rejecting the author's OWN words, written by his hand. There are many sources out there as well - and as a "scholar" you should know this. What you are clearly doing is choosing the interpretations that fit your OWN personal views while not even including ONE reference to Nostradamus' own writings. I have not seen one entry by you that quotes the man ONCE. Not once. And you think this makes you qualified to enter your own biased "facts" on the subject? It does not. Furthermore, I agree with you on Hogue and Cheetham by the way, and have not once even considered using anything connnected with them. However, I suggest that you at least enter material that is balanced and I can work with that. I enjoy reading the views that balance - but that does NOT attempt to step outside the knowledge base you have. If you require the knowledge, then ask - I am a scholar of Nostradamus' works and have been for 25 years. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Theodore7 (talk • contribs)

It looks to me like both versions are not quite ideal, though Theodore's is obviously POV. PL's uses the weasel term "Nostradamus enthusiasts," and Theodore makes baseless claims that Nostradamus did accurately predict events (which is questionable, and therefore should not be asserted in an encyclopedia), which violates WP:V.

'Answer by Th7: Questionable? Listen, try actually READING Les Propheties first. If Nostradamus NEVER predicted anything - then why even have him as a Misplaced Pages subject? My "baseless claims" include the fact that he predicted many events BEFORE they occured. These are FACTS. What do you call his 1555 forecast and accurate description of the violent death of King Henry II in 1559 - a joke? Or the many other predictions of the American, French and Russian Revolutions? The name of Napoleon some two hundred years before the man is born? Guesses? What is baseless is that you cannot even read the forecasts that obviously came true. Open your eyes! Moreover, the fact that some cannot read and interpret the quatrains does NOT mean that they have not come true. The cynical entries based on the lack of knowledge required to actually make sense of the prophecies is not sufficient enough for the statement "baseless claims" that come from non-scholars of Nostradamus. Rather, some here are just as guilty as "supporters" who attribute things to Nostradamus that have nothing to do with his work. I read see this junk all the time from both sides. I am a scholar, and know his works well and check them out FIRST before making any claims of accuracy or not. What is most disturbing is that the detractors make the same "popular" mistakes that "supporters" do in that they are unlearned in areas they love to post whatever POV about - but most have not even read Les Propheties. I have - many, many, many times and studied the works in-depth. I do not SUPPORT - I check and see that Nostradamus DID INDEED make predictions that came true - that is why he is famous. Not because of anyone's POV.'

Add a source for the claims to accuracy and make no mention of whether these claims are right or wrong—"that's the way to do it. Money for nothing and the chicks for free." Note that "Nostradamus supporters" would be acceptable if immediately followed with a link that looks like this:  In fact, I think we should see it laid out like: "Nostradamus supporters have credited him with predicting numerous of events in world history, including the French Revolution , the atom bomb , the rise of Adolf Hitler  and the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center  (see under Misquotes and Hoaxes below)." Thoughts? —BorgHunter (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer by Th7: You ought to stick with the fictional world of Star Trek that you are living in BorgHunter and leave the Nostradamus subject matter to the scholars.

Thedore, What you seem to mainly be doing is using an argument from authority by saying you have studied Nostradamus and saying the fact that you have read his OWN WORDS means your interpretations are fact. Neither of these is sufficient to establish your opinion as fact. Let's try an example with his OWN WORDS.

Answer: First, my name is spelled Theodore. Second, I am a scholar, and do not interpret. I used his own words. Check them for yourself. Learn the difference between "opinion" and "knowledge" - they are not the same. If you studied anything of Plato, you'd know this.

Many Nostradamus believers, possibly but not necessarily including you, interpret the quatrain

At forty-five degrees, the sky will burn/ Fire approaches the great new city/ Immediately a huge, scattered flame leaps up/ When they want to have verification from the Normans

Answer: I am not a "Nostradamus believer" - this statement in itself by you on Misplaced Pages is POV as you would involve others you do not know who have studied Nostradamus's OWN works as making one a "believer." This is supposition on your part and concerning me, you are wrong.

As refering to the September 11 attacks. To be an accurate prediction of the September 11 attacks, the quatrain must a)talk about events and b) be made before they happen. B is no problem, but a plain reading of the text shows no mention of New York, September 11, 2001, terrorists, airplanes, Osama Bin Laden, skyscrapers, terrorism, towers falling etc. etc. etc.

Answer: This is YOUR version of how a quatrain must be written. Nostradamus himself wrote that he purposefully clouded each and every quatrain. There is NO "plain reading" of Nostradamus. What do you think scholars are for? His works must be studied and read very, very carefully as he was a master of rhetoric and semantics. The way you write, it is as if you want it all handed to you on a plate. Nostradamus makes you WORK to understand each and everything he writes in his prophecies. Some people don't like that. So what?

In order for a reader to see this quatrain as predicting the 9/11 attacks, the reader must go beyond a plain reading and interpret the words to correspond to actual names, places, events, etc. The act of interpretation is to give an opinion on a set of facts that is ambiguous or open to argument. Your intrepretation depends on your opinion and cannot be definitive fact. My changes are not 'claims'. It is an objective fact that some people believe Nostradamus' prophecies are accurate. It is also an objective fact that many people believe that they are ambiguous statements interpreted to fit events after they occur. I also think the purpose of a 'skepticism' section is to outline good faith criticisms made by skeptics, not to discuss your POV about skeptical arguments. This is all my changes are meant to reflect.

Answer: If you are to be a skeptic, then be an HONEST one. You enter POV claims based on fallacy and not even a plain reading of the man's own prose. I suggest you read them again.

I haven't made any alterations concerning Nostradamus' childhood, and I frankly don't care about it. You must have me confused with someone else. Earlier in this discussion you threatened to 'report' PL and I hope you do. You can 'report' me also if you wish. If you continue making POV changes to the article, I think mediation or arbitration is necessary.

Answer: Perhaps; however, be forewarned, I am an expert on Nostradamus and have more than a few years behind me of research. I do not mind entries that are balanced, but many of your entries seek to sway the reader into believing Nostradamus has NOT predicted one thing. you are clearly wrong. Back that up. Because I can.

I wasn't the first one to make the reference to retroactive clairvoyance, but it is a well argued criticism made in good faith and it belongs in the article. I don't know if you are misunderstanding what the argument says or purposely being obtuse, but let me try to explain it. No one is saying that Nostradamus set out to write retroactively clairvoyant prophecies. We are suggesting that the prophecies are not connected to real events at all, but that they are vague enough to be interpreted as refering to events after they have occured.

Answer: This "retroactive clairvoyance is gobblygook and you know it. There is no such thing. It was designed by conventionalist scientists who think they can measure and weigh everthing - even love. Come on, give that retroactive thing a break man, it does not belong. Nostradamus tells you in his own writing how he did it. Give the guy a break - perhaps he did. Who is to say he did not?

It's obvious to me that you've spent a lot of time studying Nostradamus and the subject is important to you. You seem quite fond of the word 'scholar'. Scholarly debate does not consist of publishing one interpretation of a set of ambiguous facts and trying to supress other interpretations. If your case is correct, you should welcome challenges. You shouldn't care what critics say if your case can stand up to criticism. I will make POV changes later today and, if they are reversed, request mediation or arbitration. Thanks. --Tar Heel 23:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer: Of course Tar Heel, it is "obvious" because I am a scholar. Fond of the word? What does that mean? Is that a "jab" of some sort? Give that a rest. I am FOND of facts and correct information Tar Heel and not cynical statements that have nothing in common with good, accurate scholorship. You are ought to try it sometime. I am a professional and I suggest that you at least take the time to re-read Les Propheties, including the preface, before making your POV assertions. You cannot claim that EVERTHING is an "interpretation" and then run with it as if anything one says or writes is just their version of anything. That is cheap and uncalled for considering the subject matter. I suggest you give that a rest too. It will not work with me or others who have read the materials at hand. My case relies on the author's own words and his recorded biographical history. There is plenty of biographical data on Nostradamus - he lived in the 16th Century - not the pre-historic times for heaven's sake. And, I do not mind what they critics say, as long as they are accurate. What I find some of them doing is entering their own POV as theories - without a tinge of factual basis. Then, when they are challenged - especially by informed scholars, they go about citing objectivity when little of this objectivity shows itself when it concerns re-writing the biographical history of such an important subject as Nostradamus. Teddy 23:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Theodore, sorry I misspelled your name. I'm not going to go through and respond point by point because we'd get into multiple colors and confusion. I don't think we're making very much progress, but allow me to touch on a few points before I propose a solution for us to avoid mediation.

"There is NO "plain reading" of Nostradamus." vs. "You enter POV claims based on fallacy and not even a plain reading of the man's own prose." Is there a plain reading or not? And which logical fallacy am I employing?

Which of these two statements do you disagree with and why:

• Some people believe Nostradamus accurately predicted the future.
• Some people believe Nostradamus made vague predictions that were later interpreted to fit historical events.

Do you think that there aren't people who hold each opinion? Are you denying my existence?

"The way you write, it is as if you want it all handed to you on a plate." Well, I do like information to be expounded in plain language and arranged in a logical system. Perhaps that's why I'm spending my spare time working on an encyclopedia.

"I am not a "Nostradamus believer" - this statement in itself by you on Misplaced Pages is POV" My POV is on the discussion page. Yours is in the article. There is a difference.

I will demonstrate to you that retroactive clairvoyance exists by exercising it. I looked at the stars earlier tonight, and I've written a prophecy. "Come the day of the sun/ the mighty beasts will slay their foes/ by one score, plus three/ and those who follow them will rejoice." Check the NFL results Sunday and I'll give you ten to one odds that this describes at least one of the games. I'll come back afterward and claim that I forecasted the game perfectly. If it doesn't, I'll claim the prophecy was talking about another sport or another day. I'm not necessarily saying that Nostradamus did this with intent like I am, just demonstrating the mechanism.

"Second, I am a scholar, and do not interpret. I used his own words." If you look at his words uncritically and then repeat them, that makes you a book on tape, not a scholar. If there is no plain reading, how can you understand his words unless you interpret them?

"Of course Tar Heel, it is "obvious" because I am a scholar. Fond of the word? What does that mean? Is that a "jab" of some sort?" No, a 'jab' is what you said to BorgHunter. 'Scholar' is a value-laden word and using it, even if you have earned it, does not make your opinion factually correct or end the argument.

Additionally, I'm going to have to ask for a citation on the extraordinary claim that Nostradamus knew about germ theory.

Now, my proposal. I know you put a great deal of stock in astrology and I've seen your edits on that page. I like the solution they adopted, that is, splitting "validity of astrology" into a different article. I suggest we reserve the "Nostradamus" page for neutral biographical information (which you can hash out with other users if you like, except for the germ thing) and create a "validity of Nostradamus" page where we each make our case (as opinions, not facts) about whether he predicted actual events and agree not to edit each other's sections. Let me know what you think about this. If you do not agree, I will edit the article to conform to NPOV. If you feel you must reverse these changes, I will, as a first step, seek informal mediation with Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal. Thanks. --Tar Heel 03:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, proposal withdrawn. After looking at the history of the astrology article, I saw that the validity split didn't stop Theodore from editing that page 41 times, so it would be foolish for me to expect it to work here. Also, the fact that more people are getting involved makes me hopeful that we can resolve this without mediation. Mediation is not off the table, though.--Tar Heel 00:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I could comment- if someone reads the article, it really seems to be also an opinion. It looks like a good article, but maybe more for a newspaper or research magazine, because I dont know how much it is an 'information only' article... (although it is definitely interesting I think...)

In other words, the proofs look very good, but if other people dont agree, or are not sure on methods etc... then maybe it should be changed somewhat.

Thanks and good luck, Lenny

PS- I changed the article a little- I added the fact that some people believe that his family was what was called a 'Marrano'.

PPS- I noticed a conversation on this page and I want to just add something. Someone who studies a subject very well and sees and understands it through and through, might feel that they dont need to listen to those who disagree with an analysis which is not scientific or exact in nature. This is understandable and it makes sense; however, if an encyclopedia would like to be neutral, then it would seemingly have to bring down opinions from the other side in an equal manner as those from the scholarly analysis. I think that this frustration might exist in all fields as well- someone *knows* something as a fact, yet others disagrees, and both 'opinions' have to be quoted as equal. In other words, I think that this frustration probably exists in most fields of science, history, religion, etc...

Further NPOV

"Claim" → "Allege": Pretty much the same word. Addition of "Pro-": Well, there are scholars who do not agree that Nostradamus was an accurate predictor of anything, are there not? —BorgHunter (talk) 04:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

General comment

Well, well, we all know who we're dealing with now, and what he's saying, don't we?...

Answer: No, "we" don't.Teddy

1. Nostradamus's writings are plain and therefore don't need interpreting -- but they, er, have to be interpreted by a qualified astrologer (i.e. himself, of course)!

Answer: Again, no. However, there are factual and copious biographical information on Notradamus.

List it, then?

Moreover, the authors of Les Propheties himself is not quoted when others attempt to explain away how he forecast when the author himself wrote how, and why he published the prophetic works. Rather, they prefer to "interpret" themselves and claim all manner of explainations via POV but do not once quote the author himself, written in his own words. Nothing is more plain than using the author's own writings.

Curiously, I don't recall seeing anything in Th7's screed that was 'in Nostradamus's own words'. So far as I recall, all that it quoted at us was Th7 own slanted English translations - which of course is a game that anybody can play at. But then maybe I didn't look hard enough...

2. We have to quote Nostradamus's words, but he won't tell us which ones in which editions, let alone quote them at us and show us a sample comparison of the various versions of any given quatrain.

Answer: Try the Preface, to begin with. Then also the Espitle to King Henry II for another.

In which editions? Still refusing to quote them at us?

3. Quatrain I.35 is about the death of Henri II - even though Nostradamus didn't believe this, or he would have said so in his letter to Jean de Vauzelles of 1562 explaining that he thought III.55 did. His secretary Chavigny clearly didn't believe it, either, or he would have grabbed this wonderful piece of propaganda for his Master with both hands in his adulatory work of 1594.

Answer: A clear example of your own ignorance of Les Propheties and of your own bias. Of course Century I, Quatrain 35 (not Quatrain I.35 as you write) has to do with the forecast of the death of King Henry II.

'Of course' nothing! Very few of the experts believe that -- not least because Deux classes une (two fleets/armies united) in line 4 just doesn't correspond to the event, and it didn't happen En champ bellique (on a battlefield), as line 2 puts it, either -- unless of course, you are determined to twist it to mean what you want it to mean, thus actually lending support to what the beginning of the previous article said.

In fact, the first time that this assertion was made in print was in 1614, 55 years after the event!

4. Theodore 7 has studied contemporary biographies of Nostradmaus's childhood, but won't give us the details of them, let alone tell us who is supposed to have written them. He has also read various 'experts', but won't tell us which.

Answer: Do your own homework. I did mine and have no requirement to tell you anything in the tone you are using here. There are plenty of bibliographical materials on the life of Nostradamus. Read them before making such inaccurate statements.

So list them! Or are are you refusing to, in defiance of the Misplaced Pages rubric which states that all materials must be based on reliable sources? And, incidentally, why do you imply that what you write is based on the reputable authorities listed under 'Sources' at the bottom of the article, when you know perfectly well (or should do) that not one of them would support most of what you write for a moment?

5. He also accuses me of not having read the Preface of the Prophecies (which editions?), even though I have translated and published all of them, and his private letters too – and the critiques of contemporary professional astrologers such as Laurens Videl (1558).

Answer: First edition.

Which copy? (there are two known ones, and they differ considerably)

6. Nostradamus was a superb astrologer -- but Theodore7 won't analyse any of his horoscopes for us, all of which contain errors, and none of which are even adjusted for his clients' time and place of birth!

Answer: Supposition. This is the first time you mention this, but in this statement, you make a direct statement that I will not analyse any of his horoscopes for "us" (rude) and assumptive. Moreover, the last line makes no sense. What are you referring to?

It looks as if it's the first time that Th7 has heard of them, too! Perhaps, being an expert astrologer, it's a surprise to him that people's birthcharts are supposed to reflect their time and place of birth.

7. Nostradamus didn't believe in applying the past to the future, even though he wrote:

(a) 'Sed certitudo praeteritorum & praesentium fidem facit futurorum,

euentum certa indicia.'

"But the certainty of things past and present gives us confidence in

things to come, as definite indications of events."

Answer: Huh? You really are off on a tangent. Shows your lack of scholarship and credibility on this subject.

Pardon me for actually quoting 'Nostradamus's original words'!

(Nostradamus: Almanach for 1565, introductory remarks for October)

(b) 'Qui bien viendra supputer trouvera que le siecle de Sylla ou de

Marius est de retour.'

"Whoever shall carry out proper calculations shall find that the age

of Sylla or Marius has returned."

(Nostradamus: Almanach for 1550)

(c). 'On jugera le siecle d'Ataxerxes, qui fut du temps d'Hippocrate,

par revolution celeste revenir.'

"It will be deduced that the age of Ataxerxes, who lived at the time

of Hippocrates, has returned as a result of the revolution of the heavens."

(Nostradamus: Almanach for 1554)

Well, well! It seems like all noise and no signal to me! But then it was bound to happen, I suppose. Nostradamus just does things to people...

Answer: Assumptive. One does not sit around waiting for a "signal" based on personal bias and POV to come.

So I suggest the best thing we can all do is go back to bed and wait for him to go away, so that academic respectability may eventually be restored here. (Meanwhile, of course, he will need to sit fuming over his computer day and night, in case somebody comes along when he's not looking and restores the previous article!)--PL 18:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer: PL, this statement proves your rudeness, cynicism and bad attitude - including lack of objectivity and "academic responsbility" through your highly assumptive and conclusionary views. Perhaps you would be better to learn proper manners. You are in no away qualified to be able to write clearly on a subject such as this considering your posts here. You sound very young, and immature - re-read your above post and think it through before posting in this manner next time.Teddy 23:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see I shall have to learn manners. My grandmother is ready for her egg-sucking lesson, by the way! Ah, I forgot -- I last saw her, let's see, 55 years ago... ;) --PL 11:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is the Marrano comment taken out each time? If you want I can bring the sources for it...

Lenny

Sorry about that, Lenny. The Marrano point is certainly relevant if you're discussing Nostradamus's family origins in detail. It even relates directly to quatrain X.96, being referred to obliquely in the first line -- which is why I went into that in my 'The Unknown Nostradamus'. If you feel that it's relevant to the version of the article that I posted, I hope you will include it at an appropriate point (perhaps you'd remind me, so that I don't inadvertently omit it when reposting?). If, however, it got added to Th7's version, I'm afraid it's liable to be omitted each time I (or others) replace it with the previous article -- so hopefully it will re-Appear each time he reposts that!

Best --PL 11:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oy this is too complicated. Could I leave it to you? It seems like this Misplaced Pages is a 'melting pot' for the brain- ie. a bit complicated, where, as everyone knows each person on earth has a slightly different mindset, and all these minds have to somehow produce one article...

OK, I'll have a go. See what you think... --PL 16:58, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for resolution

Theodore, did you read my comments at the end of the third thread? I have a proposal you might be interested in.

Everyone, I think a lot of this discussion is getting personal and it might help if we all reviewed Misplaced Pages's personal attacks and good faith policies.

If this goes to mediation, I would like people on my side to be perceived as taking the high road. --Tar Heel 04:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It was getting personal, that's why I stopped replying on this page. I also would like to believe that we're all reasonable adults here, and can avoid taking the step of a RfC or RfM. Agreeing to stop editing the article for the time being is a good place to start. —BorgHunter (talk) 04:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer: I agree and prefer taking the high road, but not at the expense of having not to deal with those who make personal attacks in the name of "academic responsibility". Considering the level of education in this country at this time and the wide spread of "political correctness" it is no wonder that some such as DL would stoop to such low levels as personal attacks and this is typical of those making POV additions while "claiming" that others are doing so. I would remind some to read Les Propheties, particularly the "Preface", to see what exactly what Nostradamus himself "thought" about judicial astrology. This would end the discussion right there. Theo 04:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Theodore, when I said that I was talking to everyone. Now, what do you think of splitting the article?--Tar Heel 04:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm withdrawing my proposal because I don't think it would work anymore. See above.--Tar Heel 00:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC).

“Nostradamus, it should be remembered, denied in writing on several occasions that he was a prophet on his own account.” Albeit, responsible, one cannot denounce the implications of such a response during his period. One cannot call themselves a prophet in an age where a suspicion of deviation back to the home religion (Judaism) was considered terms of persecution, and rarely, but as observed in history, a death sentence. Morranos, were only allowed to exist if all practices of their religion were extinguished, at least from public view. For example, if a morrano family bought a good amount of vegetables in the marketplace close to a Jewish holiday they could be indicted as falsifying their conversions. This ties into the term prophet. The beginning of the sixteenth century saw conversions because of anti-Jewish riots in Spain, and fear of future spreading to other euorpean cities. The word Prophet itself ties a connotation toward Judaism in this period. The renaissance saw people begin to understand that Christianity came not from rich white men in Rome but from a book called the Bible which its main characters were Jews. Yet, this didn’t stop the persecutions, and only allowed a knowledge of the situation, for Jews were cited as the reason for killing Christ. Simply calling yourself a prophet with a history of a converted family was not prudent or wise thing to do, especially if one had a large family. - A

Thanks for this. Actually, there were plenty of claimed prophets (and astrologers) around at the time (Postel, Savonarola, Trithemius, Cornelius Agrippa, Gaurico et al...), and none of them were persecuted for being such, let alone for 'being Jews' – though admittedly poor Savonarola was burned for different reasons! Even allowing for what you say, though, the fact remains that Nostradamus wrote what he wrote, whatever the reasons! --PL 12:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In another view:

Calling oneself a seer is pagan enough to get around such suspicions. If Nostradamus had access to works of the Minor Prophets ( the Bible Old Testament) and good sources of history, or some Rabbi who knew of such things, he would deem some of the minor prophets used posdiction, while the title prophet was used. A case in point is this statement: ” Although, my son, I have used the word 'prophet', I would not attribute to myself a title of such lofty sublimity” This is actually Nostradamus saying that all Prophets who fashioned themselves as one, were in fact not prophets at all. The phrase “of such lofty sublimity” is very clear a summation of his true feelings of instability toward the usage of the word. - A

Well, that's a possibility, I suppose. But actually his writings show enormous veneration for the biblical prophets. Some people even suggest that the statements you refer to were really just expressions of modesty and humility by comparison with them – though to me they look too categorical for that, especially given that he elsewhere seeks to boost the validity of his predictions by actually calling them 'divinely inspired'. He means, of course, that they are biblically and astrologically based, but this doesn't stop some modern people assuming that this means God spoke to him personally (which I don't think the contemporary Church would have worn for a moment if they had though that's what he meant!). --PL 12:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions

"Meanwhile, if Nostradamus's many competitors – and he had many– never accused him of copying from it, it was because copying and/or paraphrasing, far from being regarded (as it is today) as mere plagiarism, was regarded at the time as what all good, educated people should do anyway ", which negates the argument why he had rival prognosticators attacking him in the first place indicating this is not the case. The attacks more likely would be against the content of the Mirabilis liber in which the sober argument goes forward, and not Nostradamus himself. Furthermore, when the French version came out in 1831 then these treaties trumped the copiers and therefore plays the more significant role as the source for future commentaries on prophecies in general. Once needs to answer why is such a claim reported by an author is then not utilized, and to a very lesser extent why today an English version exists but commentators disregard its application and use otherwise Les Propheties instead when they know that claim reports it as the main source? -A

Well, insofar as I can follow you, the Mirabilis liber's prophecies are much vaguer (see them for yourself under External links) and more sweeping in scope. They don't go in for so much detail, and quite a few of them had already expired by the time Nostradamus started writing his Propheties. And of course Nostradamus doesn't acknowledge borrowing from them. They merely serve as the background, or template, for much of what he writes: the actual details he is much more prone to take from classical history. --PL 12:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Is copyright in today’s mannerism considered common knowledge such as: “the church will fall?”

For example,

An author alleged this was a direct copy:

C.I Q. 44

In a short time sacrifices will be resumed, those opposed will be put (to death) like martyrs. The will no longer be monks, abbots or novices. Honey shall be far more expensive than wax..

The Miriabilis Liber version alleged plagiarism:

All the Church in all the World shall be persecuted in a lamentable and grievous manner.

Is this copyright infringement as seen in today’s standards? Is someone a plagiarist if they wrote, “ the Sun will come up on Saturday” and previously another person wrote “the Sun comes up on Saturdays.”

No. Copyright as such didn't exist at the time, and plagiarism wasn't frowned on. People did it all the time! Consider Shakespeare, virtually all of whose plays are based on unacknowledged stories pinched from others.--PL 12:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that prophecies are cyclic

Absolutely! Nostradamus himself calls his prophecies perpetuelles vaticinations, or 'perpetual prophecies' – a popular form of prediction, often used for cheap Almanacs, involving the cyclic repetition of events according to a set 'golden number', such as 28 years... --PL

and belong in the common knowledge category and cannot apply to laws of plagiarism when common themes are utilized and are already in public knowledge - the outright copying is not evident here. In fact the theme could be applied to thousands of writers in history who mention these very same themes in their own time. Why then were they not included in the unsober allegation of copying?

Presumably because we're talking about Nostradamus here, rather than Shakespeare, say, let alone Nostradamus's major source Roussat, whose book was a wholesale plariagism of an earlier book by the astrologer Pierret Turrel. --PL 12:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

A good argument for alleged copyright infringement for today’s standards while applying it ( Even it cannot) in the 16th hundreds is to find a dated quatrain, like say, C.3.Q.77 and show where an original prophecy came from, if it can be done. If not, then, this deletes the argument that the author claims that all Nostradmus’s works were compiled from earlier sources, as stated in the opening argument (See opening line Nostradamus)

Absolutely again! Prévost does that in respect of many dozen quatrains, and Brind'Amour also does it for some of them (see under Sources). Peter Lemesurier's book Nostradamus: The Illustrated Prophecies goes right through the Propheties doing exactly that in respect of several hundred of the quatrains, and he has some 50 further updates available to anyone who cares to contact him via his website (see External links). --PL 12:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

leading to another orientalist approach. The tone that a prophet cannot read others earlier prophesies, in order to understand the field in which he works in is usually an orientalist argument in general and offers no constructive usage for the investigation or for telling of history.

Why is this deleted each time?

I tried to add this several times but it was cut out- why is that? If you want sources then I could bring links.

This is what was cut out (by 'Biography'):

It is speculated by some that in fact the conversion was merely as a means to avoid Christian persecution in that age, as other Jews have done in that period. Such Jews were often called 'Marranos', and would remain Jewish in the home while outwardly claiming to be a member of the host countries' religion. (Although it was frowned upon by most Jews, since inevitably the children would become detached from their religion with the passing of time.)

Thanks and good luck,

Lenny

Thanks, Lenny. And thanks for your patience! May I suggest something like:

"The conversion was one of thousands that took place at the time, thanks to increasing official French persecution of the Jews, many of whom were former Jewish refugees from Spain formerly known there as the 'Marranos' (Spanish: 'swine'). Practice of the ancestral religion was often continued in secret, however."

Best --PL 12:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks, but I dont think it is known for certain, only it is speculated. The reason, I think, that it is speculated is because the number of Jews who converted at the time was very small, and of that number the vast majority did it out of fear. And of those, most felt that they would continue to practice Judaism in secret. (In reality, though, this was not sustainable, since the children received less of Judaism than was needed to keep it for future generations, and thus, many of the offspring did not even identify themselves as Jewish. And this only strengthened with their children etc. Although as a side note it is interesting that even today there are those who keep fragments of Jewish practices- without knowing the source! They are simply descendants of those Marranos and these practices were passed down in the family tradition. One such discovery recently: a family with spanish anscestry had a custom that the females in the family would go to a side closet, every friday evening, and light a candle. During meals, the father would cut the bread and dip it in salt and hand it to family members. When they ate lettuce, they had to first hold it to the light. Etc. They did not know the source of this custom, only that it was held has very important. Only today it is clear that they are descended from those Marranos...)

In other words, no one knows for certain (at least from what I have seen,) about the true nature of his family and their history, but based on the general era at the time, it is highly unlikely that they willingly and genuinely converted.

Incidentally, this could help to explain some of his knowledge and leanings. While in that age, xtianity surely frowned upon anything like what he practiced and wrote (ie. meditations and the occult etc...) however, if he had even a small exposure to Jewish mysticism/Kaballah, it would make sense that such concepts and experiments could have developed. Of course it is only a thought, but it can definitely make sense.

However, from his writings it seems that he may have in fact felt himself more a member of his host country's religion, than that of his forefathers. Which would also make sense, since this was the unfortunate result of the majority of the Marranos (ie. the children had no real Jewish identity...)

All the best,

Lenny

PS- Based on this, and based on the source for this speculation, it might make sense to take it into consideration in the wording... I dont know what type of wording would be appropriate though.

PPS- This is a link to an interesting article relating to Marranos: http://www.aish.com/spirituality/odysseys/Sparks_of_Holiness3_Rekindled.asp

Thanks. I agree with most of what you say. As I say, I'll have a go. I think the wording so far looks safe enough, though... --PL 17:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Done!--PL 17:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer: Again PL, you insert POV entries, and do so right at the beginning of the introduction - clearly showing your own bias. Who are you to consider the many sources - especially those of 16th Century biographers of Nostradamus "speculation?" Man, you are something else -and I mean quite biased and rude. You call what you do "academic?" Theo 19:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Many sources? Still refusing to name or identify your sources, are you?

Has it even occurred to you that the Introduction is about the numerous Nostradamus commentators, not Nostradamus himself? Gee, no wonder you seem so sensitive about it!--PL 11:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Response: No, not senstitive. I just do not find a consensus discussion taking place on the Talk Page and would actually like to start there for real rather than having to defend against your personal attacks. Is that possible? Theo 15:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

OK – perhaps I should have said 'the second paragraph' of the Introduction (the one you are complaining about)... If this is a POV, then it's the point of view of all the reputable sources listed at the end!

Response: Ok, that's a start. I just want to be very careful about the "reputable sources" you mention. As you know, if you are well-versed on this subject, that there are "sources" who attempt to write on this unconventional subject in a very conventional manner. And just to be clear here: many of these sources are either "critics" who are hostile in their "views" while making many, and I mean many errors, not just on the quatrains, but on the astrological quatrains and configurations. They are not informed and lack the astrological knowledge required to even begin to make sense of the quatrains. Reaching in the dark, and using them as "sources" is weak in my view. Much better sources exist, and I'd like to get to that rather than all the Karl Popper views being expressed on this subject. Conventional sourcing is only ONE kind of sourcing - there are plenty others who lived and knew Nostradamus, who are much better sources. And they wrote too - and this INCLUDES the author of Les Propheties himself.

Citing how he "might" have done it - without quoting the author's own words on this very matter? This, in itself - the refusal to acknowledge of the author's own words - is suspect. I'm sure you would agree. One does not have to agree with it, no, but to insert POV against the author's own words is not honest and I always suspect nefarious intentions when this is done. It is a sure red light of censoring, and steering toward personal point-of-view. It is not neutral, nor follows Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy. Theo 15:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Do please remember that an encyclopedia article is meant to contain the facts as affirmed by all the most reputable sources, and not as a few readers, or even a democratic majority of them, would dearly love them to be!--PL 16:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Response: Yes, I agree. But, I do not consider POV insertions in the introduction to be "encyclopedic". I ALWAYS lean toward adding more information that seeks to expand the knowledge base. I also prefer to have alternative views - even from critics or skeptics inserted - but NOT in the introduction. Let the author speak, and get some of the more generalized and specific knowledge & facts into the subject body. TRUST the reader and seeker of information. Let THEM decide what they need from balanced materials - including skeptical perspecitives and not POV. Remember, Misplaced Pages is a resource for students, writers, journalists, and editors who might not have the time - because of deadlines - to really get into the copious subject matter - meaning they might not have the time to read "The Centuries" They need FACTS and biographical information with links and balanced information that gives them a good idea of what is out there on Nostradamus and the related subjects. Not to be told WHAT to think - LET READERS THINK FOR THEMSELVES. They will decide what to believe and what NOT to believe.

If I were trying to write an article on this subject - on deadline - and read the second paragraph on Nostradamus, while trying just to pick up some facts, and body material for my article, I'd have to scroll past several of the critical statements because they were placed so high and are out of place. They also read very biased. Try taking a step back and look at the one I wrote as opposed to the "retroactive clairvoyance" bit and the immediate sentences and POV on "Hister" versus "Hitler" for example. There is no need for this to be placed so high in the introduction. As for criticism, there is a section in the subject matter for skpetical & critical information from numerous sources, you know.

What is the problem with placing it there? Why are you so keen on this "retoactive clairvoyance" theory placed in the Nostradamus Intro and throughout the article. You link it every time. What is your purpose here if I might ask?Theo 15:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

PS Does anybody think it's time we 'topped and tailed' this page by deleting some of the older posts? It's getting horribly long, and contains a whole lot of 'bad history'!! --PL 12:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Respond: Define "bad history." Other than that, I'd have to agree with you. However, I suggest - as always - a balanced view - and not POV insertions designed to skew the reader toward this point of view while citing rather curious Nostradamus "sources".Theo 15:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)