Talk:Nostradamus/Archive 4

message: Can we develop this a bit further?  "A good demonstration of this flexible predicting is to take lyrics written by modern songwriters (e.g., Bob Dylan) and show that they are equally "prophetic"." Jim62sch 17:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've no idea what that's about. It is relevant? --PL 17:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe not -- it depends on if it's desirable to show how anything that is somewhat cryptic, can, if twisted about enough, give the appearance of prophesy; or it can just be excised from the article.  I have no druthers either way Jim62sch 17:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: develop idea

message: Throughout the article, both Nostredame and Nostradamus are used, and the usage is only consistent within each section.  It would be best to decide on a specific usage, or to decide that Nostredame will be used in discussing his life, education, marriage, etc, and Nostradamus when discussing the prophesy bit.  Jim62sch 19:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency

message: It makes absolutely NO SENSE that you people keep deleting "Category:Astrologers" from this page -- he may have indeed been ridiculed by the astrologers of his day (source?), but that doesn't change the fact that he was an astrologer and thus obviously belongs in said category -- just glance through his quatrains for 5 seconds and you start noticing references to "Mars in Leo" or "Jupiter in Aries."  
Sometimes you Wiki-people make no sense -- SURE, go ahead and leave the category off this page...yes, let us toss all logic and FACTS out-the-window just to fit in with your personal pet-views while you whitewash the truth on any given subject.  But the fact is that when Nostradamus wrote his prophecies they were largely (if not completely) based on ASTROLOGY -- if that doesn't qualify him as an astrologer then I swear to God(s) dogs will start to fly tomorrow morning...please be reasonable with this and stop being a Wikifascist.  G'day.  --152.163.100.196 06:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm a bit doubtful about describing Nostradamus as an astrologer merely because he 'did astrology' (especially bearing in mind his own – or rather his plagiarised – castigation of astrologers at VI:'100'), I agree entirely that the category (or at least 'Astrology') should be included. --PL 09:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. - DavidWBrooks 11:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Astrology over Astrologer I can live with.  But calling him an astrologer is like calling someone with medical knowledge but no degree a Doctor.  He was not an astrologer, in fact, calling him such probably further discredits astrology (not that it needs much help in that department).  Jim62sch 23:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point noted. But then the category actually listed is 'Astrology', not 'Astrologer'. --PL 12:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Look at the bottom of the page in "Categories".  I'll wait to change it, until you get a chance to see it.  Jim62sch 14:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes: I agree that that should go. No professional astrologer of the day thought of him as an astrologer, and neither did he (he merely called himself an 'astrophile', or star-lover). Change it to 'Astrology', perhaps? --PL 16:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You people truly make no sense -- just because no one (or even himself) "thought of him as an astrologer," that doesn't change the fact that HE WAS.  He calculated astrological charts and based prophecies on them; he talked about 'conjunctions' and 'astrological signs' and studied books about astrology.  Go ahead and remove the category if you want, but you'll be whitewashing and falsifying history (along with disregarding ALL common-sense) if you do!  --152.163.100.196 01:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Falsifying history?  Uh, OK.  Jim62sch 10:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:Astrologers -- Keep?  Vote?

message: IMHO should remain, in the "See Also" part, because Nostradamus seems to give some hints about "De Labore Solis", in the quatrain where
he wrotes Pol Man Sol... maybe telling that He was a citizen from Poland. Lands then known by ancient roman (Ovidio) as "Bastarnia".
--87.10.217.152 12:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the goat-cave (caverne caprine) mentioned in X.29 in connection with Pol MANSOL is simply the well-known one in the ancient stone-quarry at St-Paul-de-Mausole (Van Gogh's former asylum), a few hundred yards south of Nostradamus's birthplace at St-Rémy. Thanks to type-setting from dictation at the Lyon printing-house (probably by a compositor who didn't know the area), Paul has simply been transcribed as pol and Mausole as mansol, with the 'u' reversed, just as it has been at IV.27 (which mentions the so-called pyramide at the quarry's centre) and at V.57 (which mentions the Mont Gaussier that overlooks the whole site). The accidental inversion was very common at the time. See colour illustration in Lemesurier [2] for the caverne caprine, which I have explored both individually and with Bernard Chevignard. I grant you that the similarity with De labore solis is tempting (in fact I have to admit to having inadvisedly floated the idea in print myself!), but unfortunately (as you can see) it's an interpretation too far, so a link to Malachy isn't really justified. Thanks for the suggestion, though! --PL 16:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The link to Saint Malachy's from Armagh Prophecy of Popes

message: Well, he's at it again, folks! He doesn't learn, does he? More dubious stuff about astrology. More rubbishing of books that he hasn't even read (it's just his usual bluster and pretence, of course). And as for deleting whole chunks of carefully researched material from the article without any discussion here first, simply because he doesn't like it – how's that for sheer ignorance and arrogance, to say nothing of academic vandalism?
Ah well, no more Mr Nice Guy!... --PL 17:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, but we must assume good faith.  Unless the other person acts in bad faith.  M. DeBonton il est mort.  Jim62sch 00:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, Bonton. -- Ec5618 00:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what Mr Nice Guy assumed. Until he did. ;) --PL 12:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet more immature antics by young Theo

message: Now he's started vandalising the article again with his usual old rubbish. Not bad for a non-member, eh? How are we meant to edit the article rationally with this sort of idiocy going on?
Theo, evidently you don't know the originals, you have never studied most of the modern research, and you don't even know French. Is it any wonder that all you manage to do is bamboozle everybody with your ignorant fiction and unsourced claims?
Do some proper research, young man. Until you have, you won't even qualify to edit the article. Until then, have the courage of your convictions and go, before somebody else gives you a helping hand. --PL 16:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have blocked you for one week for violation of the injunction. Vsmith 13:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. I've already left Wikipedia for good. I am not interested in censorship, or banning of views. As a newcomer, my experience has been horrible in the two months I've been a Wikipedian.Theo 13:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Aaaaaarghhhhh!!! He's at it again!