Talk:Nostradamus/Archive 3

message: 1. I suggest a larger opening ID for Nostradamus that includes cultural relevance not only of his own period, but how he still is relevant today in culture – and not negative either.
:Point noted. --PL 10:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks more like a matter of style to me. You are a potential editor! --PL 10:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I will look again at this, with a view to checking that everything said reflects the conclusions reached by the listed academic Sources, and that anything that reflects only one or two of those sources is specifically referenced. 'Negativity' or 'positivity' are , by their very nature, subjective, and consequently are not the point at issue – nor are they fit topics for an encyclopedia. --PL 10:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Absolutely, where such a section refers to only one or two of the sources. --PL 10:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. Sources should of course be specified, where they differ from the general view of the Sources listed. --PL 10:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for the Front Page 

message: I propose the following roadmap:
# Start with PL's version (which happens to be the current one) (1)
# Restructure to make a clearer distinction between the Life and Work of Nostradamus
# Restructure to merge the Skepticism section, Preparation... section, His works section, into a single Work section.# Additions regarding Nostradamus' life to be discussed on this talk page first (re sources/verifiability, relevance, phrasing) (see Wikipedia:Verifiability)
# Additions/changes regarding Nostradamus' work to aim at making the section conform with Wikipedia:neutral point of view. This means not making arguments, but rather reporting (neutrally) the arguments of others (with proper attribution). It also means not taking an explicit position on whether Nostradamus predicted the future or not (or, worse, taking both positions in different sections!), and instead reporting evidence as to why some people think he did, why others think he didn't, how common those views are, etc. If possible, discuss major changes first.
# If everyone involved agrees to this roadmap, then archive the previous sections (the discussions aren't live any more, and if necessary arguments can be reintroduced), request unprotection of the article, and proceed on this basis.
Rd232 talk 17:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, Theo won't be able to comment until tomorrow.  Rd232 talk 17:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roadmap 

message: Those wishing to join in the official Wikipedia disputes procedure over Theo can find it here. It already has quite a head of steam, thus far mainly from the astrology group. --PL 17:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes procedure over Theo's reverts and other behaviour

message: All other debates aside, this article exhibits some of the worst English I have ever seen.  The whole thing needs to be rewritten. Jim62sch 03:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hopefully you mean 'this page', rather than 'the article'?! ;) --PL 10:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: I would propose to add the following item to the External Links once the article becomes editable again:
* Online Nostradamus Library of original works in facsimile --PL 10:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New External Link

message: IT IS GENERALLY ACCEPTED AS JULY 2ND, AS USUAL WIKIPEDIA PUTS THEIR OWN DATES... THAT'S WHY I TRY NOT TO GET MY INFO FROM THIS SITE...
Yep, that's a point. Something else from the original article (before my time!) that needs correcting once it is de-protected. Proposed draft text above duly amended accordingly. --PL 11:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DEATH DATE

message: Can we try unprotection or is everyone too far apart? --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did fix the death date, at least. - DavidWBrooks 02:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Did that, too. No reason to leave in tiny little errors, when fixing them don't violate the spirit of page protection. - DavidWBrooks 20:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks again. Would the fact that Theo hasn't replied for a while mean that he has been blocked? If so, this would of course affect the decision on whether or not to unprotect... --PL 09:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection?