Talk:Nostradamus in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Neutral Point of View

Perhaps it is just me, but all of the incessant side commenting (see, for example, the parenthetical statement of "naturally" regarding the anagram of Arethusa) appears to be unnecessary. Although it may be a widely held view of the invalidity of Nostradamus, that doesn't disregard the fact that this is, indeed, expressing a point of view. Anyone agree? Oscabat 04:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The 'Arethusa' comment, clearly, has nothing whatever to do with the validity or invalidity of Nostradamus – but merely with the gullibility and 'Americocentricity' of the would-be interpreters referred to, and perhaps their geographical and mythological ignorance, too. All this is quite obvious from the evidence presented, and thus hardly POV. Much the same possibly applies to the other occasions that you refer to – though unless you are more specific it is difficult to be definite. However, there's no reason why you shouldn't edit the bits in question – and remove the NPOV tag when you've done so (provided, of course, that yours isn't POV!!). (Indeed, unless you edit the bits in question, the neutrality of the article won't in fact be disputed, so you should remove the NPOV tag anyway!) You have, after all, already signalled quite properly your wish to do so here: having so signalled, there doesn't seem to be any reason why you should need to flag each individual change here. So please go ahead... --PL 07:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

One needs to think long and hard before slapping a POV tag on an article. As PL explained, the use of "naturally" refers to the lack of understanding of the quatrain and the need to force the words of the quatrain to fit a certain predetermined mindset. I see nothing wrong with the use of side comments in this topic, if they serve a valid purpose. •Jim62sch• 11:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I understand completely that it is certainly gullibility, but I don't think that justifies facetious comments. Let the reader decide for himself. I disagree with Jim: I don't feel as if the comments are merited, because they certainly aren't any more informative than the other information. As for the NPOV tag: perhaps it did not merit the tag, but the explanation of the NPOV tag is exactly what I was explaining. I'll go ahead and remove it. Oscabat 03:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with Jim, though, that the word 'naturally' had the positive merit of indicating that the interpretation in question derived from a pre-existing mindset. Difficult to indicate this without seeming facetious: 'inevitably' would, I suppose, serve the same end, but run the same risk. Anyway, I'll go along with your suggestion, and have suggested a further slight tweak or two to improve the paragraph. Any other objectionable bits? --PL 08:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The rest of the article looks great. Thanks for your cooperation. Oscabat 14:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been nice working with you. •Jim62sch• 16:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is very unneutral and provides the reads with the point blank opinion that Nostradamus is not a prophet and that the only reason he has such a following is because of hoaxes.

Ah, Mr Anonymous again! Please list here any respects in which the article fails to reflect the reputable sources listed in the main article. --PL 08:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

For example,

"(which is incorrect; New York's latitude is 40°47') (even though Nostradamus refers in this way to various 'New Cities' whose names, unlike 'New York', literally mean 'New City', and especially Naples – from Greek Neapolis, 'new city'); and most of the attempts to fit in the 'Normans' seemed contrived at best. After the factual nature of these claims was widely denied, some suggested instead that the first line might refer to the actual angle at which one of the hijacked airliners hit the World Trade Center (which seemed unlikely, even if the rest had fit)."

ALL OF THAT IN ONE PARAGRAPH! Is there any chance I could get some citations for opinionated statements such as, "After the factual nature of these claims was widely deined"? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to remain unbiast? I came to this Wikipedia article hoping to learn of some of Nostradamus' prophecies, but they only thing I found was a truckload of bunk from a bunch of biast Wikipedians. This article needs major POV revisions.

Once again, please refer to the main article's sources. Most of those subsequent to 1991 explicitly denied the claims. If you really want 'to learn of some of Nostradamus's prophecies', meanwhile, your best plan will be to read them. This you can do via the main article's external links. That's what they're for. Given that Nostradamus wrote at least 7280 prophecies, a mere encyclopedia article is clearly no place for giving actual details of them! --PL 08:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movement

OK, I moved that almost unuseful section that made very heavy the articcle. --Giancarlo Rossi 21:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK by me! --PL 16:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two more..

i remember that in the begining of every Futurama episode there was some kind of message displayed, and one time it was 'predicted by nostradamus'
also in Brainiacs (actually a commercial of them) Gear said 'the only science show predicted by nostradamus' --Tyriel 10:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's just about how Nostradamus is usually treated: 'Nostradamus predicted whatever has just happened'. --PL 10:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What, Nostradamus didn't predict September 11? Oh no!!!!!!!! I've been basing my whole life on falsehoods!