Talk:Nostradamus/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Giancarlo Rossi's changes

"Blitzkrieg"' completed ! --Giancarlo Rossi 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)(Gen. Karl Rosenfeldt)

Thank you, Giancarlo, for your changes to the article, and especially for hiving off the 'Hoaxes' and 'Nostradamus in popular culture' sections into separate articles – though it might have been better had you floated your Blitzkrieg here first, as the changes involved are rather major! Personally, I think they're a good idea, though, especially as they keep the main article shorter and tauter.

I have tidied the main article up a bit, so that the new articles are referred to via 'See also' rather than through in-text notices. I have also modified the starts of the two new articles so that they make independent sense.

I'm afraid I've had to delete both of your 'Frontenac' insertions, though, as (a) Frontenac wasn't in fact a source of the article as your insertion suggested, and (b) the link you inserted was to a flagrant book-sales site! The right place for inserting a book-reference to him, if at all, would be in a 'Further reading' section, which we don't have at present. We used to have one – it contained Leoni, Ovason and one of mine – but I don't really think I'm in favour of it because it would open the way for anybody to insert a whole load of disreputable titles and make it seem that the authors of the article were recommending them! So if you're happy to exclude Frontenac, I'm happy to exclude mine! ;) --PL 11:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I realize that on the surface those changes look acceptable -- logical even -- they could be seen as content/POV forks which is a no-no on Wikipedia (SEE [1]). I'm going to leave it alone for now (mostly because I don't see a problem with the one (hoaxes)), although I'm not totally enamoured of the second change. I'm going to ask a friend to give me his opinion on whether or not these changes constitute a fork. Jim62sch 12:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. On the other hand, take a look at this, which seems to fit the case exactly. The object, after all, is not to use 'forking' as a device to slip in an alternative point of view (which is certainly a no-no), but merely to 'hive off' a couple of sections that tend to congest the main article, as earlier suggested by others here (was it David, or Rd232?). Giancarlo was very careful not to slip in his own views. Indeed, neither new section should be used to present POVs: the 'Contentious issues' one would have to content itself with 'reporting' both sides of any contentious isses raised, not arguing either in favour or against them. That would be its raison d'être.

Possibly this might suggest the need to insert a one-sentence summary in the main article re both sub-articles to make them entirely 'legal' – in which case would you care to do this? However, should you feel strongly enough about it to want to revert either of the sections, I trust that you will do all the necessary editing, rather than me!! ;) --PL 16:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing, I just want to verify.  :) Jim62sch 16:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not? --PL 16:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Peter and Giancarlo, I got the news back from the admin: tres bien, molto bene, "good way to spin off daughter articles.  :) Good job guys! Jim62sch 20:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim. In that case I would propose to add the main article's Source list and External links list to the end of the 'Nostradamus: contentious issues' article for purposes of easy reference. They would then of course be infinitely editable in terms of the various issues aired in that particular article. --PL 08:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. Nostradamus in popular culture I have no problem with; but what exactly is the logic behind moving the Hoaxes section to Nostradamus: contentious issues (and why does it include a copy of the main articles Sources and External Links sections)? The spoof/hoax described (which is it BTW?) should be moved to the popular culture article, where it would be a useful addition. Nostradamus: contentious issues should be deleted, as with a title like that it's almost guaranteed to lead to bunfights over what is "contentious" and/or turn into a fork. Finally, the Well-known Misinterpretations section should also be moved to the popular culture article. That would create an article large enough to create a useful summary of here, which is what should ideally happen with daughter articles. Rd232 ^talk 11:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anybody else have thoughts on that? I suppose the hoax/spoof (it was both, really) could be moved to the Nostradamus in popular culture article, but it was (and still is) pretty controversial, given that quite a lot of people (the majority, possibly) still think it was genuine. Which might suggest that it's a Contentious Issue. So perhaps it should be included as one until it stops being, when it could be quietly moved back again, or shifted to Popular Culture?

The addition of the main article's Sources and External links sections was designed purely to serve as a 'starter', by the way. I would envisage that both would be whittled down and/or added to over time to fit whatever is posted there.

Actually, the idea of creating a 'Contentious issues' space was precisely to draw all the inevitable bunfights away from the main article. All that is needed is that it should be policed to ensure that only balanced reports (not tirades) are posted (see my note on its Talk page). Put yourself in the position of the average nutter (and, where this subject is concerned, they are legion!): you won't be allowed to put your latest hare-brained theory in the main article, so you are forced to take it to Contentious Issues, thus being obliged (perhaps for the first time) to admit that it is a contentious issue – and that you are expected to provide at least one counter-argument to it!

Meanwhile, the Well-known Misinterpretations section doesn't concern merely popular culture: the ideas in it have been floated in some oddly 'serious' books!

So leave things as they are for now, or see what it looks like if you juggle them as suggested? --PL 17:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If you want to merge the two articles, please nominate them properly -- but preferably afterr they have been fleshed out. Elsewise, I agree with PL. I have retitled Contentious Issues to Nostradamus:Hoaxes, Disputes and Unconfirmed Citings (no typo, pun). I removed most of its sources and external links as well. Jim62sch 02:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Is this last wise in the light of what I suggested earlier? --PL 09:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel quite strongly that Nostradamus: contentious issues is a bad idea; your comments do nothing to suggest it won't turn into a fork, and this isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work: if necessary, we "defend" the main article against original research and POV edits. Moreover, even if it's explained why the hoax currently there is "contentious" (currently there is no explanation that it is, or why, or who thinks it is real), it's still essentially part of popular culture, as a sort of urban legend if you like. As to the "Well-known Misinterpretations" section, in my view that is most relevant in the context of popular culture; it doesn't matter that some of these misinterpretations appear in "serious" books, especially as I don't think you mean academic ones. Think about the article that Nostradamus in popular culture should become: this section seems an excellent basis for explaining what many people believe about Nostradamus (also useful would be some summary on how many people believe the prophecies, how many books sold on the topic, that kind of thing). Does that make sense? Rd232 ^talk 18:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, more or less. Rather depends what it looks like when it's all collated. Would ending the main article with 'Hazards of Interpretation' be satisfactory?... --PL 11:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a grand idea. Tomer^talk 04:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and there is a distinction between a hoax and a spoof: a hoax is meant to fool people, while a spoof is meant to be understand as not the real thing, at least on careful reading. Rd232 ^talk 18:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The 9/11 hoax was in fact a spoof. What fooled everybody was that the spoof was turned into a hoax! --PL 09:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

While I'm at it, why do we have a nonstandard citation style? We have Lemesurier [3] and [tomb], which should be eg like this: Lemesurier (2003b) and tomb [1]. Can we correct this please. Rd232 ^talk 11:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to convert all the citations in the way you suggest, or even into footnotes, be my guest (Ec was proposing to do something of the kind)! But please hang on to them one way or the other – they're our first-line defence against the anti-factual nutters, who will always accuse us of 'just making it up' if they get half a chance! --PL 17:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Converting to footnotes is a different issue, because it changes how the article has to be maintained. Standardising the citation formats is easy and if someone else doesn't do it I'll try and get round to it. Rd232 ^talk 18:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish you would! We keep being visited by a string of Admins and quasi-Admins, all of them suggesting that we should be doing something different from each other – then abandoning us as soon as it comes to actually doing it. One consequence is that I no longer have any confidence that anything I might do would be 'correct'. --PL 09:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what a "quasi-Admin" is, but I don't see any admins, quasi or otherwise, giving conflicting advice on what should be done. I can't do much about your professed loss of confidence, but I can tell you that the primary reason I don't contribute here other than for typofixes and wikilinkings is because I don't know hardly anything about the subject matter. If you need help with something, you should know by now that I'm more than happy to help in any way I can, if you take the time to contact me on my talk page. Tomer^talk 04:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tomer! --PL 10:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The spinoffs were an excellent idea (even blessed by a quite capable Admin), as for the rest I'd be apreciative if nothing is done until I get back later tonight to respond to all of RD's issues and concerns. Jim62sch 20:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur. --PL 09:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Footnoting and formatting

Footnoting presents no real problems. I'll take care of that issue presently. Jim62sch 02:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again – if you would! --PL 09:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

(resetting margin) I think the Nostradamus: contentious issues article should be part of Nostradamus in popular culture as well: contentiousness about Nostradamus are part of popular culture, since the contentiousness is a direct result of/reaction to his popularity in popular culture. If there were controversy about Nostradamus and he were not a figure in popular culture, then the "contentious issues" article might have merit independent from a bibliographical article, but it is his popularity that makes him important enough for there to be any controversy...all this to say, the controversialness is part of his rôle in popular culture. Tomer^talk 07:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense, I suppose. But then so does restoring the article to its original, integral format (discuss?)! However, I've spent long enough now on supplying info and researching links. So now it's over to you guys. Do as you like. As far as carrying out re-formatting is concerned, I'm outta here! But I would warn you once again not to reduce the level of cross-referencing if you value the article's continued integrity – which relies heavily on incoming nutters being faced continually with the actual evidence!--PL 09:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree that restoring all the split-out information back into this article makes sense...it was spun off with very sound reasoning, and the finished product left both articles better able to concentrate on their respective subject matter. I think diligence in watching for nut jobs is now going to be more of an exercise at the pop culture article than here, but that's part of what we take upon ourselves as volunteer editors... :-) Meanwhile, I've added it to my watchlist... Tomer^talk 04:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If either RD or Tomer nominate those two articles to be merged as one daughter article, I'm sure they'll find a consensus easy to find. Personally,. I'd rather they were not put back in the main article. They, like Vaticinia Nostradami better serve Wiki's needs by being separate articles.

Nothing will be lost by the footnoting, the article will just be easier to follow. Jim62sch 14:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and merged the Hoaxes article into Nostradamus in popular culture, and also most of the Well-known Misinterpretations section from Nostradamus, and created a section summary of the daughter article. Nostradamus:Hoaxes, Disputes and Unconfirmed Citings and Nostradamus: contentious issues should both be deleted now. What do others think of this structure? Rd232 ^talk 16:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

take up the redirect deletion at WP:RFD. I'm not sure how to merge edit histories for those 2 articles with the history for Nostradamus in popular culture, which may cause GFDL problems, but other than that, make sure any relevant talk on either of those 2 redirects' TALK pages is merged with Talk:Nostradamus in popular culture before they're deleted. Tomer^talk 04:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Looking good to me so far! Well done! I suggest you leave out the 'Village Idiot' subsection, though, or you'll have to quote all my spoofs as well! Go with the footnotes, I say – unless it's going to create problems for future editing. But then that might be a good idea, too!!...--PL 17:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me too... Tomer^talk 04:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As I've alreadty started the footnoting process, I would appreciate no more bold moves. Agreed? Jim62sch 19:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a logical request...just don't lock the process up too long ;-) Tomer^talk 04:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Excellent work so far. Just occasionally it seems to upset the line-spacing: any remedy? Hopefully you 'got' the proposed extra final para? --PL 10:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, now that I look at it, the line-spacing prob also seems to occur when people with superscript bits in their sigs contribute here. Perhaps it's an inbuilt Wiki software problem? --PL 10:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's all straightened out now.  :) Jim62sch 23:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well done, Jim! Only three refs left to do in the final section! I hope to go through them all with a fine-tooth comb in the next few days, to make sure we've got them all right. --PL 09:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep, they all look fine to me now. Thanks! Great job! How about completing it by doing the two or three footnotes currently required for 'Nostradamus in Popular Culture', Jim?

Time to archive this page and start again now, would you think, David?--PL 10:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've now inserted some pix. --PL 12:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Archived. Jim62sch 02:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Re the latest edits: 'a leading Renaissance leader' is quite an example of... er... redundancy, isn't it? The Renaissance wasn't an organisation, and so didn't have leaders as such: 'scholar' is much more accurate. 'Prominent' might be better than 'leading', though, if somebody fancies a bit of hair-splitting! As for 'Black Death', it wasn't known by that name in France at the time: the word was 'la peste', or '(the) plague'. Hence the article as it stands. --PL 15:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources

The sources in this article require ISBNs, if they are books, or complete information on the journal/newspaper/magazine in which they were published if they are just articles. This should be quite easy to achieve as most sources are from the 1990s. I'm surprised this didn't come up on FAC. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Will address. Though I really don't see why, as academic reference books almost never give them. --PL 15:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Somebody will need to look up Dupebe and Clebert, though, possibly on French Amazon. Nostradamus himself doesn't of course have any: they hadn't been invented in his day! --PL 16:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. They don't register on Amazon.fr. I'll put out feelers. --PL 16:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't sweat it, ISBN is optional. "References typically include: the name of the author, the title of the book or article, and the date of publication. Different professions, academic disciplines, and publishers have different conventions as to the order in which this information should be arranged, or whether additional information is required. Usually, the list is in alphabetical order by the author's surname. The name of the publisher and its city is optional. The ISBN of a book is optional. From: Wiki Cite

•Jim62sch• 17:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've removed them again. To my mind they make the list look like a commercial listing, rather than an academic one. Meanwhile I'm getting a bit fed up with people making up Wikipedia's alleged rules for it as they go along. --PL 10:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

PS Not sure what's happened to the Wiki reference and your signature here, Jim! ;) --PL 10:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[Later] OK. I think I've sorted it (see previous edit). --PL 16:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Nostradamus's source: The Arabic manuscript

Whichever predictions that Nostradamus got from the Arabic manuscript he stole, those are true and going to happen. The manuscript was a book written by Ali bin Abi Talib the fourth Islamic Khalifah. Ali got all the prophecies from Prophet Muhammad before the prophet died. The prophecies covering up to the era of the Dajjal (the Anti-Christ), prophet Isa (Jesus), Armageddon and many others. 9/11 also being revealed as the biggest hoax targeting the Muslims before the Anti-Christ era. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.50.219.181 (talk • contribs) 08:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

In that case, Mr Anonymous, you will need to prove (a) that Nostradamus stole an Arabic manuscript, (b) that his prophecies are versions of its prophecies and (c) that they are true and going to happen. Quite a big job – and not a subject for this forum, which is concerned with discussing the article as based on the standard sources listed. Wikipedia is not for speculation, however fascinating. Try alt.prophecies.nostradamus? --PL 15:45, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Well said PL. That was a humourous link though -- truth seeker indeed -- I see that they are still seeking, well, stumbling around in the dark. •Jim62sch• 19:53, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

prophecy and fact

I agree that Nostradamus's quatrains are so vague and loosely worded that any event could be interpreted from its sources. I write this out of all honesty because truth is stronger a goal than sophistry. Although I reiterate that Nostradamus is a HOAX in my opinion, I do have to be fair to the truth. Before 9-11, a video/documentary about Nostradamus did in fact mention that Nostradamus's quatrains revealed that New York would be a target of aggression from the Middle East with a description of the instruments used matching the airplanes used during that event. However, this video/documentary displayed the instruments as white ICBMs. Though the actual words of the quatrain came close to describing either instrument of 9-11. This is one thing I thought of after 9-11, that is I thought of Nostradamus's prediction pre- 9/11 according to this video/documentary and thought to myself, "Oh boy, now all the Nostradamus followers are going to scream we told you so !" So in all fairness not all attempts to correlate quatrains of Nostradamus with events in history came after the event which was compared. Although I agree with the author that many assertions by Nostradamus's followers occured with vague writing which could be interpreted in many different ways to events after the fact, 9/11 is not a credible premise for the author's argument as it leaves those that are familiar with Nostradamus followers' mumbo jumbo with opportunity to correct or refute that premise, thus leaving room for questioning the credibility of the rest of this article. I will write the name of this video/documentary tomorrow when I can pull it out of the collection. The rest of the article to my opinion is good though.

Thank you, 66.32.41.9. Since the video you mention gives neither the date nor the correct means of attack for 9/11 (and is therefore not a prediction of it), and since videos and books galore have been incorrectly using Nostradamus to predict a nuclear attack on New York for years (including Orson Welles' famous The Man Who Saw Tomorrow, based on Erika Cheetham's long-discredited writings [see the reviews on my User page]), please refer to the article Nostradamus in Popular Culture (see link provided), which is the proper place for raising such issues if properly sourced. It already deals comprehensively with the point you mention, and not least the fact that the quatrains involved simply don't fit. --PL 08:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)