Talk:Nostradamus/Archive 7

message: Isn't it time this page was archived?, possibly with the exception of the last section? Jim?--PL 09:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything that hasn't had any comments in the last week, yes.  •Jim62sch• 10:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel like doing the honours yourself, then? ;) --PL 10:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yep, when I get home tonight -- of to work I go. (Hi-ho).  •Jim62sch• 10:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Finally got a round tuit.  •Jim62sch• 20:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive?

message: Am I correct in assuming this matter has been resolved and no longer requires mediation?  Ideogram 14:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which matter is that? So far as I know, no mediation has been requested, and there are not currently any disputes requiring it... --PL 16:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 2006-06-06 nostradamus requested by Davkal.  He probably should have informed you, but it appears to have resolved itself so I will just close the request.  Ideogram 16:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please refer to the above link and let me know if you object to my filing.  Ideogram 18:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  medcabal request 

message: Is there a reason that an image is stuck at the very bottom of the page? 68.39.174.238 06:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  HuH? 

message: The point I am making is straightforward. At present the article makes the claim the N did not take himslef to be a prophet (in the sense of someone using occult means in attempt to predict future events).   As evidence for this the article cites N explicitly rejecting the title of prophet. This is equivocal because when N says "prophet" he does not mean "someone using occult means in attempt to predict future events". The reason this is obviously so is that in the last quote he says I am using occult means to try to predict the future. So, we have a section which shows N saying "I am a prophet but I am not a prophet" which is either a contradiction (wrong and to be removed) or equivocation (misleading and to be clarified or removed). The reason it can't be clarified and left as is is that if it was clarified there would be no conclusion or claim left for which the quotes were needed in the first place.Davkal 10:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you and only you know what Nostradamus "meant"?  Unlike his quatrains, his French in these instances was quite clear and to the point.  Knowing (I gather) no French, you propose to use the translation to ferret out some secret meaning that isn't there?  Spare us the nonsense. •Jim62sch• 11:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you even bothered to read any of the sources (in their entirety)?  I suggest you read them -- the reason he rejects the title is rather simple: prophesy belongs to the gods.  In fact he makes the distinction between prediction and prophesy numerous times in his prose.  Thus, before you object any further, read.  •Jim62sch• 11:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: How many more times does it have to be explained to you? The prophecies that Nostradamus published were not the result of his own powers of prophecy, and he specifically denied that they were. Therefore the article needs to reflect the apparently contradictory facts (to you at least, apparently) that (a) he was publishing prophecies (largely second-hand) and that (b) he was not himself a prophet. The point is a perfectly simple one, reflected by all the sources listed above. What your views about it are, or how you habitually understand the terms involved, is neither here nor there. That is what the sources conclude, and that is therefore what has to appear in the article. --PL 12:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have clarified this slightly in the article. Meanwhile you seem to be overlooking the fact (presumably unknown to you) that Nostradamus contradicted himself on many occasions, giving (for example) five different dates for the Creation of the World. In fact he made a positive art of it. You are also confusing what Nostradamus did with what he said he did, which were often quite different things. However, on the question of whether he was a prophet or not, he is absolutely consistent. He was no more a prophet than you or I would be if (as many do) we tried to predict our own future on the basis of his Prophecies. --PL 14:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If you're going on what he said, then he was a prophet, not a prophet, an astrologer, not an astologer, a doctor, not a doctor... All we can go on, consequently, is what he actually did, which has long since been established by the reputable authorities listed on the basis of careful analysis. In particular, he didn't predict the future on his own account, and he rarely used astrology in the Prophecies (he merely asserted that he could if asked). So why you're making such an absurd song and dance over being consistent about Nostradamus, when he was rarely, if ever, consistent about himself, beats me. Equivocation was his middle name! --PL
If what you say is true then that is probably all the more reason why the section in question is misleading. That is, at the moment (except for your brief note) it roughly says that "N denied he was a prophet/attempting to predict the future absol-bloody-lutely" when the truth is, as you now suggest, far more complex than that. It therefore seems perfectly appropriate to me to tone down the definitive claim made there and  instead explain (you could use all the space taken up by the quotes) that N distanced himslef from the role of prophet to distinguish between "prophet of God" and astrologer/prophet and also to cover his back from the inquisition. One might even conclude with something like, "there are so many conatrdictory claims in N's writing about his own work that it is hard to say for sure exactly what he took himself to be doing." Davkal 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Equivocation

message: A friend of mine told me he was Jewish, this article and the talk archives don't mentioned it, so I "Googled" it.  Top hit is that it's a myth (the page says his paternal grandfather converted from Judaism to Christianity).  Several other pages say he was.  None looked reputable. 207.172.172.221 21:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Few on online references outside this article and the External References are reliable – not even Britannica. --PL 08:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, if the link was patrilineal, it's irrelevant.  •Jim62sch• 00:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would mean he was not "Jewish" in the halachic sense but many would see there as still possibly being an ethnic or cultural element (see Who is a Jew?). However, since it was only a single grandparent and doesn't seem to have been at all a major part of his life, this hardly seems important even if one could confirm it. JoshuaZ 00:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish?

message: I have once again had to remove your proposed link, Sasha. I'm not saying for a moment that you haven't done a lot of work on it. Moreover, I think your re-arrangement of the two Nostradamus images is entirely sensible. But offering translations in five languages other than English is not appropriate here. If you wish to offer translations in those languages, then the right place to do so is in the foreign-language versions of the article listed in the panel on the left-hand side. Moreover, basing them on the late, corrupt Bareste version of 1840, of all things (!), is totally inconsistent with the article, which is based throughout on the original editions of 1555, 1557 and 1568.
In addition, I am assured that the Spanish, Portuguese and Italian versions you are offering are all very poor. The German has its merits, but is near-illiterate in places (e.g. in the first verse). The English, for its part (which is the only one that matters here) is full of major errors that are totally inconsistent with the reputable sources listed. I shall be happy to list some of them if you like. But the main objection is that your English translations of the Centuries are plagiarised throughout from Erika Cheetham's copyright The Prophecies of Nostradamus of 1973/5 (and not even on her later The Final Prophecies of Nostradamus!!) and are therefore illegal under the terms of Wikipedia.
Until you have replaced these entirely with much better and more accurate translations based on the original editions, therefore (see the existing links), there can be no question of including the link here, since it will not be (as the heading requires) 'consistent with the article'. --PL 15:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The translations is not based on Bareste edition. For example russian translation is actually Kiev 1991 Lybyd edition which is based on the originals published before 1600. English translation is Bareste 1840(which has no copyright ofcourse). Spainish one was taken from wikisource. The other translations maight be bad, but there is no better versions aroun the internetSasha l 16:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, see WP:RS. •Jim62sch• 19:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page 38 kb long - whith the same luck you can refer to the whole wikipedia. Could you tell me the exact rule the site does not suite, if so? Sasha l 20:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed external link