Talk:Nostradamus

• Talk:Nostradamus/archive (to July 2005)
• Talk:Nostradamus/archive2 (through end of 2005)
• Talk:Nostradamus/archive3 (through end of Jan. 2006)
• Talk:Nostradamus/archive4 (Through Feb 20, 2006)

Nostradamus gay author!!!???

The Beginning sentence of this article is as follows "Nostradamus (December 14, 1503 – July 2, 1566), born Michel de Nostredame, was one of the world's most gay authors of prophecies" I am unable to edit this, who wrote in gay? This needs to be removed as soon as possible. ----Chris

Thanks. This seems to have been done. --PL 09:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

He *is* one of the most famous..., not *was*. funkendub 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would have thought that, too. --PL 15:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Major disaster, really?

"With each succeeding major disaster, such as that of September 11, 2001, people have sought, always after the event, to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it...". Isn't this just an example of the extreme American POV that is so dominant on wikipedia. Sure, I do not contest that it was a tragedy for those involved, but in a global (and especially historical) perpective it was definitely not "a major disaster". Look around you, there are "major disasters" taking place all over the world each year such as earthquakes, tsunamis, famine and so on. But I guess it would be too much of me to ask for as most of the wikipedian users probably can't even point out where Africa or Asia is on the map.

Please sign edits to Talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~ I think the point here is that 9/11 is an excellent example of a disaster people have sought to find a quatrain for, rather than an example of a major disaster per se. --Dhartung | Talk 09:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that may be true, but I dispute that 9/11 should be used as some sort of a prime example of a "major disaster" when there are so many disasters to choose from that caused a lot more destruction, and cost in human life than 9/11.

There are psychological and symbolic disasters as well as physical ones! --PL 14:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Immortal?

I removed "In the immortal words of Arthur C Clarke" as I don't think that kind of wording has any place in an objectively written factual piece of work. Is Mr Clarke an omnipotent being, or are the various manifestations of his work omnipotent? No. He is not 'immortal' and neither are his words. --Anon 23rd May 2006

Fair enough. Mind you, it's a familiar enough literary phrase, and his 'Third Law' may be remembered for a long time. On the other hand, the word 'immortal' might, I suppose, suggest that it may be remembered for ever. True, it may be – though that would have nothing whatever to do with 'omnipotence'. However, in the context of Wikipedia it's also true that it might indicate inappropriate approval. --PL 08:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I removed that whole sentence, because the quote was totally irrelevant to the topic. The previous sentence indicated that Nostradamus' predictions were vague, and that he wrote them based on humdrum methods. The quote from Arthur C. Clarke essentially states that if one doesn't know how something works, it might seem amazing. But since Nostradamus' predictions were just said to be vague, and largely unoriginal, never having predicted anything specific, nothing about it seems amazing, whether or not you know what his methods are. I would rather apply this quote to, perhaps, the astronomical prediction of a solar eclipse to one who knows nothing about the sun or the moon (as in Twain's "Connecticut Yankee..."). If someone strongly disagrees, feel free to revert. - Torgo 01:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it has a purpose. It's been reverted. •Jim62sch• 09:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that most people assume that Nostradamus used magic to arrive at his predictions, since they can't see how he did it otherwise. The article shows that he didn't. He merely used a perfectly ordinary technique that is nevertheless too clever for most of them to 'spot'. Hence the Clarke quote, which states exactly that. --PL 10:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that Nostrodamus did not use technology, let alone magic. The Clarke quote is very nice, but it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Nostrodamus. It is simply irrelevant. It does not belong here. Please do not put it back again. 85.210.70.193 11:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, he used the technology of comparative horoscopy and historical projection involving the use of complicated tables and even cardboard computers, but which the uninformed persist in assuming was some sort of magic. The Clarke quote is therefore absolutely a propos. Moreover, unlike certain people, he could actually spell his name! ;) --PL 11:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"Comparitive horoscopy" and "historical projection" are not "technologies," they are methods. The Clarke quote really is irrelavant and inappropriate. funkendub 15:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

And Apianus's disc-type computers, as illustrated in Lemesurier op. cit.?

Perhaps you should consult Webster's definitions of 'technology': "3: the specialized aspects of a particular field of endeavor <educational ~>". Clarke's Third Law sums up extremely neatly the difference between what Nostradamus did and what the ignorant assume that he did, and therefore makes an excellent summary-statement. --PL 15:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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 [2]. 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

&#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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.

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. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 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)

NPOV?

"Since the time of publication of the book, a virtual cult has grown around Nostradamus and his Propheties. With each succeeding major disaster, such as that of 9/11, people have sought (always after the event) to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it — usually taking considerable liberties either with the original text or with the event itself. Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance."

This seems to be very biased against Nostradamus -TheOtherFonz 18:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

By "biased against" I assume you mean "an accurate rendition of failed attempts to use the prophecies of" - DavidWBrooks 18:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd imagine that those inconvenient facts are to be left out of the article and a more hagiographic tone is to be adopted. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I would agree that that part is biased. "..(always after the event)..." is a false statement, since it has been stated by others on this page that some believers in Nostradamus's prophecies believed before 9/11 that there would be an attack in New York form the Middle-East. The last sentence, "Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance," also seems to be false because of this. Even though those believers thought that the attack would use missles, they still accuratley "predicted" an attack in New York from the Middle-East. - nonimus 2006-05-21 02:25 (UTC)

So a generalised prediction is a specific prediction? 'There will be war in Europe', for example, is a prediction of World War II, or III, or IV? If so, which? Did the 'believers' specify airliners, the WTC, the non-nuclear nature of the attack, the date? Did they warn the authorities? If so, which specific quatrain (see above) did they claim gave these details? And if they didn't, 9/11 wasn't predicted, even though something vaguely akin to it might arguably have been. As for Nostradamus himself, not one of Nostradamus's predictions mentions New York, let alone an attack on it, whether from the Middle East or anywhere else, so how can he possibly have predicted 9/11? You may not like the article's statement, but clearly it is purely factual. As for the initial claim above, clearly the statement is in no sense biased against Nostradamus.

Meanwhile, if New York suffers an even bigger attack tomorrow, will the 'believers' have predicted that as well? Or instead? And what about Nostradamus? --PL 16:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Any news on an attack on LA? Or Chicago? Philly, Atlanta, San Fran? Surely there must be something about a vast wasteland, cubs wearing white socks, a bell, an underground and a pyramid mentioned somewhere (might have to play with the word a bit, but hey, isn't that de rigueur?  ;) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that in future anybody making statements such as those under discussion be asked the following questions:

1. How can reporting the antics of those who misrepresent Nostradamus (see Nostradamus in popular culture) possibly be described as 'criticising Nostradamus'?

2. What the 'believers' (actually the falsifiers – see Nostradamus in popular culture) predicted was a nuclear missile attack on New York. There has beeen no nuclear missile attack on New York. So how can it possibly be said that their prediction was correct?

3. If the 'believers' correctly predicted the WTC attacks on 9/11, then they should have been prosecuted for failing to warn the authorities about it, and thus for indirectly aiding and abetting terrorism. Have they been?

4. If New York is destroyed by a nuclear missile attack tomorrow, do you guarantee here and now that you will continue to claim that the predictions of the 'believers' refer to 9/11, and not to the nuclear attack – even though that is what they in fact predicted?

As for the recent edit-comment suggestion that the relevant material in the article is 'original research', it is simply a fact that, so far as is known, no quatrain has ever been used successfully to predict any particular event, at least as evidenced by the sources listed (which are by definition all that the article can base itself on): not one of them adduces such a case. Thus, it is any suggestion to the contrary (and any editing based on it), and not the assertion itself, that constitutes 'original research'!--PL 08:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think an encyclopedia is the correct place to put forward personal views about things. The simple fact is that that some people have made predictions prior to certain events based on Nostradamus' writings (9/11) and some other people claim those predictions are not good/specific enough to count as genuine predictions at all. How specfic things need to be, however, is a matter of personal taste and therefore neither point should be cited as fact. In addition, there is a perfectly reasonable way of putting both sides of this debate into an article without claiming that one is correct. For example, "Supporters of Nostradamus have identified numerous quatrains which they claim predict many important world events, while critics argue that in almost all cases the association between the quatrain and the "predicted" event is made after the fact and that in those rare cases (e.g. 9/11) when a prediction is made prior to the event the claims are so general that they have no real predictive value etc. etc.". In this way the article can cover the facts about Nostradamus and the current viewpoints concerning his abilities without presenting those viewpoints as fact. As things stand, the claim that "to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict an event in advance" is simply wrong, since it lacks the caveat "to everyone's satisfaction" or something of the sort.

Two further points. Firstly, I am not an authority on Nostradamus, but as I understand things Nostradamus rose to prominence during his lifetime specifically on account of the fact that Queen Catherine de Medici intrepreted his writings as correctly predicting the death of her husband, and some aspects of the manner of his death, prior to his death. This may not be true, but if it is then we have at least one case where a specific interpretation was made prior to the event.

Secondly, I am unaware of the rules and regulations governing predictions, but it seems to me that the only thing necessary for a prediction to be a prediction is that it accurately predicts an event prior to the event and not that it is necessarily correctly interpreted by others as predicting that event prior to the event. If a clear case can be made that x accurately predicts y then whether it was noticed that x predicts y prior to y happening is largely irrelevant. All failure on this point alone could mean is that the predictions are not much good as warnings or some such thing, but they may still be accurate predictions nonetheless. The question that would decide this point would then become: are the predictions so vague, or so likely (there will be war in the East at some point) as to not really count as a predictions in the strong sense at all. And while this latter point is addressed above, it is very different from the bald assertion that predictions must be perfectly clear to all and sundry prior to the event to count as a prediction at all. After all, if we really are dealing with an ability to gain knowledge of the future by means unknown, then we are in no position to place a priori constraints on the manner in which that knowledge comes to us. Davkal 05:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)Davkal

1. No, Nostradamus didn't predict the death of Henri II at quatrain I.35 (as is widely believed today, thanks to uninformed writers such as Cheetham), and nobody suggested in print that he had (not even himself or his over-enthusiastic secretary Chavigny) until 1614, 55 years later. Indeed, in one of his Almanachs for that year (1559), he actually stated 'France shall greatly grow, triumph, be magnified, and much more so its Monarch.' He himself would later relate the event to a different verse entirely (III.55 - open letter to Jean de Vauzelles of 1562), but only by retrospectively changing one of its words. Methinks somebody has been led astray by the professional falsifiers again! ;)

2. The article merely reflects the fact that none of its stated sources (which by definition are all it can rely on) point to such a prediction. However, if you wish to discuss the issue here, please quote and reference just one quatrain that anybody has ever used accurately to predict an event that subsequently happened (that means using all the elements in the quatrain, and not merely a selection of them, and applying all of them to the event), other than in the most general sense (e.g. 'there will be war', 'an earthquake', 'a flood somewhere in the Mediterranean'...). --PL 09:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the length of the debate in both this section and the "Does not Conform to NPOV" section, clearly shows that it was not written with a Neutral Point of View, but clearly from the non-believers position. ProdigalSon 08:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, and the POV got through the peer-review process and made it to featured article status? Extraordinary! What you really mean, is that that the article is historically factual, and not hagiographic. Why not take the time to read the Encyclopaedia Brittanica article on good old Nosty. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but he makes a valid point there actually. Let me immediately preface this by saying that I do not believe the slightest of any of this nonsense about a supposed ability in certain humans to predict future events (so any smearing attempts from you or others to try and place me in the camp of 'believers' will remain quite fruitless regardless of effort), and yet when I first read the introduction of the article on today's featured article page I swiftly and without pre-meditated thought found myself questioning its neutrality as well, and I am a seasoned editor of this website despite the fact that I have never bothered to register myself. I find the way in which you and a few others here seem to take this criticism of several people now on a near personal level to be rather suspicious as well, actually. Wikipedia is not a place to promote neither pro nor contra views, but a place for factual information to be presented in an objective and neutral manner so that each reader can draw his or her own conclusions based on that objectively presented information. In my personal opinion anyone who actually believes in these Nostradamus prophecies is quite frankly a retard, but that certainly doesn't mean I will be adding such statements to the article even though technically I could prove this by underlining the fact that none of these prophecies (or any like them for that matter) have actually proven to be correct. Quite frankly, Jim, I'm just not that arrogant a person.

And that is something you and a few others here could learn a thing or two from, as a matter of fact. We are going to work on improving the neutrality of this article. I am completely open to debate and open to suggestions on how exactly we will achieve this, but you may as well come to terms with the notion that I find your arguments as to why the opening section of the article should remained unchanged to be unconvincing. 81.240.58.215 11:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

...which, for what it's worth, contains at least four major errors (compare this article)! --PL 09:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you to User:81.240.58.215|81.240.58.215. The negative responses from others, however, do not address the points raised so I shall try to clarify them. Firstly, it is simply not true that nobody has made a succesful prediction using Nostradamus' quatrains, and; secondly, even if it was true it would be irrelevant. This is the reason the statement relating to this claim should either be removed or amended. On the first point, there is, for example, the 9/11 prediction, and I, myself, have predicted using quatrain (pick any quatrain you like) that there will be a FIFA World Cup in Germany this summer (I have even predicted the teams involved, the times of the matches etc. etc.). What is in doubt here, what is a matter of opinion rather than hard fact, as almost everyone in favour of keeping/amending the text agrees, is whether the predictions made are specific enough (in the case of my World Cup prediction surely yes, in the case of 9/11 maybe) or derive clearly enough from the source (in the case of my World Cup prediction clearly not - the picking of any quatrain sort of gives the game away, or in the case of 9/11 maybe) to demonstrate any predictive power in the writings of Nostradamus. But, as noted, this is a matter of personal taste. And the point here is that nobody can rightly lay claim to be official judge of what is and what is not specific enough to count as a genuine prediction given what little we know about the form that foreknowledge of the future would take, if it exists at all. Even if you don't buy any of that, there is still the second point concerning the question of where the claim that it is necessary to correlate a prediction with an event prior to that event gets its importance. The point here again being that given what little we know about the form that foreknowledge of the future would take we simply cannot neutrally place such demands upon prediction. In summary, to insist upon such demands as, e.g., using "all" the elements in a quatrain in one prediction, or to discount the 9/11 prophecy for not having dates (and if it had dates we would then presumably need times of the day and the highjackers' names as well!), or to demand a priori correlation is like saying "of course, none of the proponents of the theory of evolution have succesfully managed to produce any birth, death or marriage records from the jurassic period" which, even being true, is hardly neutral. In both cases, then, it is this placing of constraints that are by no means agreed upon that means that any conclusions drawn (no succesful predictions yet made) are themselves non-neutral and should not be stated as neutral fact. And, given that there are readily available literary devices for dealing with such things, for example, caveats such as "it is argued that...", the resistance to even this simple change seems to me to call into question the neutrality of the article still further. Let us ask, why is this opening section really there: to inform the reader neutrally about Nostradamus (including, if you like, informing them about the debate concerning his predictive powers), or to present judgements about Nostradamus and his commentators from one particular (even if it is correct) standpoint as neutral fact rather than as judgements. Davkal 14:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)davkal

Ah ! tu parles le français moyen ? Tres bien, prévois quelque chose pour nous maintenant ! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

1. The opening statement doesn't pass any judgement on Nostradamus, only on his would-be interpreters. Do try and distinguish between the two.

2. The article is (and according to Wiki rules has to be) based on the academic sources listed. Whatever the rightness or wrongness of your extraordinarily tortuous argument in vacuo, the fact remains that not one of the sources listed cites an example of a quatrain being successfully used to predict any specific event in advance (if you know of such a case, please cite it). The well-known predictions regarding New York were not of 9/11, but of an attack with nuclear weapons: no such attack has occurred. The opening statement is therefore correct. --PL 15:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

1. In your first point you make my point for me - excellent. The opening passage passes judgement. Please label it as such with an appropriate caveat or remove it. 2. In your second point you completely ignore my claim that your are not the appointed judge of specificity relating to predictions therefore you are in no position to state categorically that such interpretations/predictions are not of 9/11. That is your opinion, and the best that can actually be said is that if the predictions/interpretations are of 9/11 then they are not exact. Given this the documentary which included the now-calle "9/11 predictions" can be cited as the case where a prediction was made prior to an event. 3. I do not see why it should cause so much alarm to insert something like "it is claimed" before a claim rather than to just have the claim stated there as if it were a documented fact rather than a point of some debate. 4. If you look at the actual text in the article "Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance" you will see that it does not even make any reference to specificity re the details of the event (the point you now appear to be arguing, instead it says "any event whatsoever", and in light of the 9/11 predictions this seems just plainly false. Alternatively, if what is meant in the article is that nobody has verified that a prediction has come true prior to the event then, given the impossibility of such an enterprise (discounting validation through further prediction) this should really be made clear since I doubt many readers will guess that the mere claim that nobody has done the impossible is what is being made. Davkal 16:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

translation needed

Hi,

I would appreciate some help to translate in English the below extract of Nostradamus:

Comment ilz signifioient l'homme qui auroit vescu son juste eage.

L'homme qu'auroit acomply son droit eage

Et qu'a vescu jusques au terme parfaict

Signifier nous voulant ce passaige,

Une corneille font metre en vif pourtraict

Car elle vit cent ans de bien long traict,

Cessi vray estre ilz feurent consentens,

L'egiptien an estoit de par tel trait

Qu'il contenoit par lors quatre cens ans.

Much appreciated!

Cheers,

Pete

Ah well! Alas, that's not one of those from the Orus Apollo manuscript that I translated in my Unknown Nostradamus. But given that it will give people here some idea of what is involved in the book, let's have a go, bearing in mind that, to be a proper, representative translation, it needs to scan and be in rhyming verse (!) – which necessarily involves a certain amount of adjustment and/or padding, especially given Nostradamus's typically vague syntax (likewise governed by the need to scan and rhyme):

How they signified a man who has lived to a ripe old age

The man who a full, ripe old age shall know

And reach thereby his full and proper term;

That passing wishing fully to affirm

They put a living portrait of a crow,

For it doth live a span of five score years.

They were agreed that this indeed was true,

Th' Egyptian year being so made, it appears,

That it of years four hundred did accrue.

Bear in mind, though, that this extract from Nostradamus's translation of the Latin version of a Greek book on Egyptian hieroglyphs (a) is ill-informed, and (b) is poetry, not a piece of legal prose! --PL 09:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

And all this years and years before the Rosetta Stone was found. ;P &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. The actual meanings of the hieroglyphs weren't known at the time. Champollion wouldn't come along until another two-and-a-half centuries at least – and Nostradamus didn't predict him, either! ;) --PL 10:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Does Not Conform to a Neutral Point of View

I'ved added this article to the list of articles that are not NPOV due to things like this, "Since the time of publication of the book, a virtual cult has grown around Nostradamus and his Propheties. With each succeeding major disaster, such as that of 9/11, people have sought (always after the event) to find a quatrain (or two) that "predicts" it — usually taking considerable liberties either with the original text or with the event itself. Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance" it's quiet clear that this article needs a lot of work. The Fading Light 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please show in detail how this piece does not conform to the academic sources listed and to the specific evidence presented in Nostradamus in popular culture. Then, when you discover that it does (assuming that you've even studied them) kindly remove the NPOV tag, which isn't designed to indicate that the facts recorded are different from what you would like them to be, or indeed different from what a 'democratic majority' of people would like them to be on the basis of the disreputable popular literature with which (as the sources themselves record) the English-speaking world has been hoodwinked for so long!

If, after three days, you have failed to show that the piece does not conform to the sources listed, or that it demonstrably lacks accuracy in some other way, the tag will be removed anyway, since you will not be disputing the neutrality and accuracy of the article in terms specified by Wikipedia. --PL 08:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that this article went through a substantial peer-review process to achieve FA status, the NPOV tag appears to have been placed based on FL's own POV, and hence unwarranted. FL needs to understand that NPOV does not mean that one cannot call a spade a spade. I am removing the tag.

BTW, this article is to appear as the featured article on 5/30/2006 -- something that would not ooccur wre the article not in conformity with the NPOV guidelines.

Finally, as the quote in question is sourced, FL hasn't a leg to stand on. I would suggest FL take a thorough look through NPOV guidelines before making any further unsubstantiated accusations. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I support that. --PL 15:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe that you ignored the fact that I quoted part of the article that is BLATANTLY NPOV in italics. Maybe a couple of people here need some reading comprehension courses. Nor did you even bother WAITING three days before removing the NPOV tags. Also I am willing to state that not all sources can be considered accurate, did the source sited for the quote come from a site that is already critical of Nostradamus or from a neutral source? The Fading Light 03:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

First, ditch the caps. Second, ditch the attitude. Third, PL's and my comprehension skills are just fine, thank you. Fourth, the tag was removed for reasons explained in the edit summary and above. Fifth, the section you bolded is not blatantly POV, it is stating a fact (note that you erred above in noting "blatantly NPOV"). Sixth, read WP:RS and WP:V -- the source cited clearly meets the criteria of both policies. Seventh, reread WP:NPOV and try to avoid the common misperception of "Neutral" point of view. Eighth, looking at your edit history (a whopping 208 edits, of which only 66 (31.7%) are mainspace edits) it seems that you might be best served by getting a bit more experience under your belt before attempting to lecture others on what you see as a problem with a particular article. Finally, to quote an axiom from Nostradamus' mother tongue, "Généralement, les gens qui savent peu parlent beaucoup, et les gens qui savent beaucoup parlent peu." &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

1. An article (or part of it) that accurately reflects the academic sources listed is by definition not POV. Perhaps you should research what the term actually means?

2. I wasn't the one who removed the tag.

3. By and large, the sources listed pretty much agree with each other, and are universally regarded by the reputable, qualified scholars (both French and non-French) as standard works on the subject in their respective languages. Many of them are based on each other chronologically, and their authors have in some cases collaborated. Consequently, none of them sticks out as being less accurate than the rest, though since research is naturally ongoing, the older titles tend to be marginally less reliable. All, of them, however, are based firmly on the original texts and archives.

4. The piece you quoted says nothing whatsoever about Nostradamus. It is entirely about popular commentators on his works, few of whom have studied them in the originals (or even know what the originals are), and most of whom do not even know the 16th century French in which they are written. Have you and do you?

5. If you really want to know what the attitudes of the various sources are (with the exception of Randi's they are purely factual, and endlessly referenced, but I don't necessarily expect you to believe that), read the published research for yourself. --PL 11:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out one thing about this discussion. Jim, while I agree with you here, I don't think it's fair to judge anyone's ability to contribute solely based on their number of edits, mainspace or not. It may be appropriate to cut someone a little slack who is clearly a newbie, but beyond that, I believe a user should be judged based on their contributions and words alone. - Torgo 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Despite all the crap that FL has taken, he's pretty clearly right, in my opinion. The article has a strong de-bunker's POV. The fact that the de-bunking position is correct does not excuse, for example, a number of sneer phrases and the absence of detailed presentation of the pro-prophetical position, though there must have been tomes written on the subject.--Chris 01:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The article debunks nobody but the perennial popular falsifiers of his prophecies. --PL 08:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Methinks, PL, that some people are looking for the mystery, rather than factual history. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 09:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Did they ever do anything else? ;) --PL 10:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

"the neutral point of view is a point of view... that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject." You think this article reads like it's not opposed to believers of Nostradamus? "Perennial falsifiers" doesn't carry a value judgment? A phrase like "He is widely regarded as a seer" would go a long way. Or presenting some of the texts that make people feel this way. As it is, this article is definitely not NPOV, and it's a disgrace that it's FA. But, hey, I've posted <50 edits, so what do I know? 80.169.138.156 11:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

This article is not in opposition to its subject. It is in opposition to a particular (false) view held of its subject. Be precise. Argyrios 12:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I was precise. "...opposed to believers of..." And it's exactly the opposition to this view - that Nostradamus is considered a prophet (by whomever) - that makes this POV.

I think the lack of distinction between "He wrote predictions of the future" and "The predictions were wrong/vague/misquoted" is the crux of the issue here. As it reads now, the article gives an uninformed reader no chance to make up their own mind. Compare to the articles on Graham Hancock or Intelligent Design, equally polarising topics, and far more NPOV. 80.169.138.156 14:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The article reflects exactly (as it should) the conclusions of the academic sources listed. Wikipedia rules forbid it to do anything else. Unlike the sources' authors, people who do not even begin to know the subject (let alone 16th century French) are in no position to 'make up their own minds'. Wikipedia is not a democratic polling organisation. --PL 15:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Readers of a NPOV article are in no position to make up their own minds? You're right this is not democratic, it's starting to sound quite the opposite...

Of course! Facts aren't an à la carte menu. --PL 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The article does not reflect the simple fact that many people believe Nostradamus' writings were prophetic. The tone of the article is strongly sceptical which, while no doubt factually accurate, contributes nothing to the understanding of why he is a household name. Wikipedia's own article on prophet lists Nostradamus among them, a perspective this article certainly wouldn't support. (And don't run off and edit "prophet" just 'cause I mentioned it.) 80.169.138.156 15:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

First, the snide accusation was unnecessary. Second that Wiki lists him in the article profet means nothing other than the fact that it was the opinion of thoise working on that article that he belonged there. You are in essence making an argument from authority, which is, as I'm sure you know, a fallacy. Third, see Nostradamus in popular culture for the discussion you seek. There is a rather substantive difference between writing about Nostradamus' life and works, and the rabidity of his followers. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Really? My eyes must be deceiving me, then. I could have sworn it said: "Nostradamus enthusiasts have credited him with predicting numerous events in world history, including the French Revolution, the atomic bomb, the rise of Adolf Hitler, the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and even the death of Diana, Princess of Wales."

As for the 'tone', the article is not skeptical. It is purely factual. It simply states what the recognised academic sources have discovered about him from the original texts and archives. Skeptical this might sound to those who have swallowed all the modern populist rubbish that has been published about him. But even he didn't claim to be a prophet, as you can see from his own quotes in the article itself. 'Out of the horses' mouth...' --PL 15:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Quick cleanup

"which consists of one unrhymed and 941 rhymed quatrains, grouped into nine sets of 100 and one of 42," Theres either 942 quatrains or the last century is only 41 quatrains long. Bit of a counting error. --Nog64

The statement is perfectly correct. Try looking at them. --PL 08:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, 900+41+1 = 942. I'm missing the math problem here.

Alert, perhaps!

Shouldn't this article be protected, since it's on the main page? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 00:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

That's why it should NOT be protected, except to clean up after vandal bot attacks. Having articled linked from the Main Page editable is advertisement for the Wiki concept "...the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" as the Main Page states. Kusma (討論) 00:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Awesome

I knew it would become a featured article soon. General Eisenhower • (at war or at peace) 00:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

WWIII

Somewhere on the internet I saw a translated quatrain disected and noted about talking about a possible WWIII. It had pretty considerable detail. Something about Russia invading Eastern Europe and getting as far West as Italy and a major battle in Genoa. Other than that, I don't remember much. If anyone knows what I'm talking about, please verify what I am saying.Cameron Nedland 01:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nostradamus says absolutely nothing about all this. You're merely talking about the popular falsifiers. --PL 08:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

James Randi

James Randi has written extensively about Nostradamus. Shouldn't this article be linked to him in some way? Maybe just a mention of him? Winick88

His book is listed in the Sources (or was, last time I looked), mainly because his debunking of the popular falsifiers of Nostradamus is difficult to better. --PL

Just an interesting note that questions the validity of a sentence

"Yet, to date, no one is known to have succeeded in using any specific quatrain to predict any event whatsoever in advance"

I find that a little hard to believe. While I hardly ever believe in prophecies/soothsayers I was impressed at childhood by Nostradamus and his "sucesses" in predicting based on the past events. For whatever it was worth there was a quartrain predicting a nuclear attack on New York and when my brother chose to go to N. America I wanted him to go anywhere but New York, just to be on the safer side. He then finally moved to Toronto exactly a month prior to the 9/11 attack. Every time I think about that it makes me wonder and marvel at his writings (probably even mistranslations that led to me avoiding NY) that saved a life.

The translation was done by Erica Cheetam and in it says New York attacks specifically with the illustration on the cover page depicting attacks on the WTC among other things. I'm sure many who have done research on Nostradamus' work must be able to cull this piece of information and atleast prove that his prediction (with un/intentional interpretation by the modern day author) could have been partially right in this case. Anyone? --Idleguy 09:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The 'prediction' was not Nostradamus's, but Erika Cheetham's (as subsequently taken up in Orson Welles's famous film/video)! Nostradamus never mentioned either nuclear attacks or New York City. Nor is the latter at Nostradamus's stated latitude of 45 degrees, as Erika suggested. Nor, indeed, was there a nuclear attack anyway. Please see 'Nostradamus in popular culture' on this. Reviews of Cheetham and other authors can be found on my User Page. --PL 09:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. It seems you've done extensive work on Nostradamus, and I can understand that it was more like a loose prediction that was translated by Erika to make it sound New York city (those twin brothers analogy etc. seemed convincing.) But it seems by some sheer luck or coincidence she seems to have got it somewhere near the bull's eye on this one. It wasn't a nuke but it was pretty devastating. And from personal experience I must add I am not sorry to have heeded the "prediction" or whatever it was. --Idleguy 12:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Point taken! ;) --PL 15:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

To say the least. In any case, Cheetham (pronounced Cheat'em) is a charlatan. Si tu peux trouver un quatrain spécifique dans le français original qui mentionne les armes nucléaires, comme New York de nom, le partager svp avec nous. Merci. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 15:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing mentioned in the quatrains specifically about New York or nukes. I haven't come across anyone who predicts in simple terms, instead they try to confuse others and have an "out" as Randy says. In the end my take on this is that the mistranslation and misinterpretation (intentional or otherwise by cheetam) may have resulted in a semi-spectacular prediction. That's all. Translation courtesy of Babel fish :D --Idleguy 15:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe Cheetham used Bablefish to make her prediction, a task even more impossible than using it to translate the Divine Comedy. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 16:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)