Talk:Nostradamus/Archive 2

message: The following was posted as an RFC on 26 December 2005: "Huge disputes over NPOV, promotion of him as a psychic, including/removal of skeptical views. There are at least three different versions that are repeatedly reverted to by various editors. Need new blood, especially those well-versed in NPOV issues, as all three sides claim their side is NPOV." Could somebody provide links to the competing versions, and/or summarise the issue(s) briefly? The comments above aren't very illuminating, and it's hard for visitors to say anything helpful. Rd232 talk 20:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that; it all sounds reasonable, and I think we need to hear the other side if we're going to make progress with why there is a dispute. (Otherwise, your version looks a good basis on which to proceed.)
Let's see what the 'other side' says, then! ;) --PL 16:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: However, I like the structure of the German version much better, in its clearer separation of Life and Work (also the first three paragraphs of the section "Die Prophezeiungen" don't seem to be quite there in the English version, and are useful.)
I merely worked on what was there already. I could have a go at enlarging it. What do you think, folks?--PL 16:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and we don't want a Skepticism section, as this implies that the article is written from the Gullible Point of View. :-O (The article as a whole should be neutral, and any material that might go in such a section be incorporated appropriately elsewhere.)
Response: I disagree. I think a Skeptical section is needed as it would reduce the obvious negative POV on the main subject.Theo 09:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Try and do without it, I think. It should be possible to incorporate that material elsewhere in the article. Rd232 talk 16:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Finally, maybe "Legacy" would be a useful unifying theme/heading for material other than Life and Work (i.e. popular culture, hoaxes, continuing popularity/influence etc). Rd232 talk 15:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That was my thinking; have a look too at the changes I just made to the German article. Rd232 talk 16:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: I don't remember a book about Nostradamus that could be considered
neutral: Auclair, Bareste, Beltikhine, Bockin, Boscolo, De-Fontbrune, Frontenac, Ionescu, Lemesurier, Leoni, Patrian, Ramotti, Randi, Roberts, Ruzo...
each one of this persons wrote a very different book, departing more
or less from the same quatrains.
-The french Auclair (~1960) wrote of Nostradamus as a Catholic Prophet.
-Bareste discovered the method of the "linking names or words"
-The russian Beltikhine (~1950) wrote that Nostradamus put a lot of
quatrains about his past times, as those related to the destruction
of the city of Tharso, or the one about the capture of Heredde.
-The german Bockin underlined Nostradamus as very anti-catholic.
-The italian Boscolo discovered several "secret" quatrains in Venice's
Marciana Library, used a "spiral-reading-method" and then make a
computerized "great salad of languages" in order to explain Nostradamus, and everytime he saw the word "long" he though of the chinese dragon!  
-The french De-Fontbrune used philology, made a lot of mistakes in the 80's but his father made a good job in predicting II W.W.
-The french navy captain Frontenac (1955) made an interesting study, since he used military decoding proceedings (Vigenère table) and
proposed a cronology that crashed badly... but suggested that the
method of Kabbalah should be employed (And that the quatrains will
never be understood in a scientific way, but there will be always
a door opened to skepticism, since they require faith to be accepted).
-Hewitt and Lorie wrote maybe the worst book in nostradamians history,
relying massively on extensive anagrams and change of letters.
-The romenian Vlaicu Ionescu used the Rudolf Steiner's methods of relaxation and trance, and managed to predict (in a book of the 70's) the falling of comunism in Russia for May 1991 (based upon q.I.16).
-Leoni (based on Le Pelletier), wrote an useful glossary, dictionary.
-The american James Randi, made sometimes very smart observations, but he carefully avoided even to mention the clear hit made by Ionescu. 
-The italian C.Patrian, made an excellent review of several authors. 
-My professor O. Cesare Ramotti (italian) found and interesting
kabbalistic method, and deciphered the drawings about the Popes in
Nostradamus Vaticinia. But then he put too much New Age sauce.  
-Roberts made an interesting work with the "liturgical date" 325 A.D. 
-The peruvian Javier Ruzo found a direct link with the structure
of Nostradamus' testament and the structure of quatrains.
(please dont'cut and rend unclear the structure of my message)      
 '(omissis)'
--87.3.229.114 19:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate sections for skeptycal and believers are needed 

message: I love to know who said the translations on two of the sites are 'crude word for word'. Last time I checked.. is there any other way to translate a document if you didn't know it's true intention? -- Roger Wehbe 151.197.230.139 18:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Word for word 

message: Don't know how long this will be blocked, but someone who might be interested and able to could change the links to "Plague" to an appropriate unambiguous page - and probably delink some of the occurances.  Might want to link the thing that is looming outside as Black Death and the thing he is treating as Bubonic Plague.  John (Jwy) 04:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am only "passing through" with this and my interest in the specific topic is of curosity but not enough to dive into the details for these purposes.  My criteria for disambiguating the plague to Black Death or Bubonic plague is based on what is on those pages - and here they define Black Death as from 14th century and "it" continuing in a series of epidemics until the early 18th century.  Your update is making me re-examine the antecedent of "it" in that article and wondering if I have it right.  The good news is I have not been changing the word "plague" in the articles, only the link to the underlying article.  And the article provides information about that entire span of time. John (Jwy) 16:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plague disambiguation 

message: This is exactly what I hope will be done in light of the rampant negative POV on the primary subject. I prefer a balanced encyclopedic article and to trust the reader to obtain as much information as possible.Theo 10:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I suggest that all concerned have a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial if they haven't done so recently? (OK, I can, and I have. :) ) Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words may also be relevant: statements like (in Theo's version) "Many people say" and "Michel was said to have" should be avoided. Rd232 talk 14:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting Back to a balanced Nostradamus Article

message: The notice that you see about suggested page size is outdated, from the days of old browsers. There has been discussion on the technical board for administrators about dropping it, or at least boosting it to 100 K or more. So I don't think we need to worry about this page becoming unreadable for technical reasons due to length, at least not yet. Trimming or breaking up longer articles is good for readability, but that doesn't necessarily apply to Talk pages. 
The question, then is: Is the discussion on this page at a point where we can archive all this and start over, or will that disrupt the flow of thought? - DavidWBrooks 14:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more item about archiving