Talk:Nostradamus in popular culture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Popular Culture This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture,
a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to popular culture.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within popular culture articles.

This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[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)

Note: I'm not the same anonimous of above.

Even if I don't believe in the prophesies, I find the article far too impartial for an enciclopedia. And yes, you can say "but there are proofs", but that should go to an article titles "Claims against the predictions of Nostradamus". Even further, I think the title is wrong, I mean, were he right or wrong, Nostradamus was a friggin prophet. Considering his predictions "popular culture" is very incorrect, as those were what originally deserved him hundreds of books.

Once again, I don't believe in prophets, but neither I believe in miracles and I don't consider Jesus walking on water to be "Jesus in popular culture" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.103.198 (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

An Encyclopaedia article is supposed to be impartial!! As for Nostradamus being a 'friggin prophet', if you had read the main article you would have seen that he himself repeatedly denied being anything of the kind. And, finally, the article doesn't describe his predictions as "popular culture": it merely refers readers to the way in which they are reflected in it. If you want to learn about the predictions themselves, read the main article. --PL (talk) 11:34, 21 February 2008 (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!

[edit] Supposed Prophecies

I'm no Nostradamus expert, but it seems kind of strange that the 'supposed prophecies' section only contains a single example (and an extremely recent one, at that), while seeming to gloss over the other predictions commonly attributed. Would it be possible to include analysis of other predictions, like his 'Hitler' and 'World War' predictions? PolarisSLBM 11:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

How about taking a look at the 'Alternative views' section of the main Nostradamus article? --PL 15:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:NostradamusHisteria.JPG

Image:NostradamusHisteria.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)