Talk:Vaticinia Nostradami

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Visual arts

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Article name

Can we change the title of this page -- the Latin is wrong: Nostradamus Vaticinia means nothing, Vaticinia Nostradami, on the other hand means "the prophesies of Nostradamus" Jim62sch 12:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it might be nice to translate this: The Vaticinia Michaelis Nostredami de Futuri Christi Vicarii ad Cesarem Filium (The "prophesies of Michel Nostradamus on the Future Vicars of Christ (Popes) to Cesar (the/my) son") Jim62sch 12:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I added the NPOV tag because there isn't any of the skepticism surrounding Nostradamus that can be found in related articles. The "interpretations" given here seem to be nothing more than retroactive clairvoyance. If I knew more about the topic, I would add it to the article, but as it stands now I can only add the NPOV tag.--24.2.75.186 07:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up: images

I reformatted the images and their placement in the article but there are too many and most of them don't appear to be the images which are being talked about in the text. I strongly recommend at least removing several of the pointless images or removing all the pointless images and replacing them with some of the images actually mentioned in the text. The whole article needs rewriting to be reader friendly too. Random Passer-by 20:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

I created a couple of redirects for here: "Lost Book of Nostradamus" (and "The LBON") because the History Channel is airing a show about this. I initially typed that in looking for this article, I suspect others will, too. Squad51 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery year

The history channel notes the year of discovery Italian journalist Enza Massa to be 1994. Just checking for the right dating. Thanks. Heeldigger 05:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of link?

Does someone want to remove this link: Nostradamusonline

It seems to be just plugging a guy's book.

TuckerResearch 05:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revision

I have completely revised the article to remove all the speculation, the irrelevant links and the disreputable sources, partly with the advice of leading world Nostradamus expert Dr Elmar Gruber, who actually has copies of relevant manuscripts. I have also removed some images, as there were far too many. I have left some, though, including No. 23, which is among those to be found also in the Vaticinia de Summis Pontificibus. Hopefully the article is more factual now, if rather more sparse, though you may need to help me defend it against the nutters whose motto is: "I am holding Nostradamus's prophecies hostage and torturing them until they say what I want them to say." --PL (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision?

OK, getting rid of Nostrodamus speculation is OK but not replacing it with more reputable replacements is not. And how does reducing the number of pictures from the book help?

For 'reputable replacements', please see under 'Source'. As for the pictures, there were originally far too many of them for the text to support, most of them irrelevant to the question of the book's origins and superfluous to the description of its nature. --PL (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://lostbookofnostradamus.wordpress.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.214.121 (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube link - how do we know it's genuine?

I removed this:link title

Vaticinia Nostradami (dubbed by the History Channel 'The Lost Book of Nostradamus') Viewed Page By Page on YouTube

(Very rare video of all the images in Vaticinia Codex, without any comment)

It's an anonymous link, do we have any reason to treat it as genuine? Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's genuine all right -- and rather nicely presented. Compare the images on the Vaticinia Nostradami page and the History Channel film of it with the images and texts in Ramotti's book as verified with the aid of the copy of the original Vaticinia held by Dr Elmar Gruber. But it's not the 'Lost Book of Nostradamus', as the article explains. Thus, including it would be good, but difficult to reconcile with what the article says! Curiously enough, it appears to have been taken from Lost Book of Nostradamus Origin Controversy, which is better, but still seems to think there was some Nostradamian input. --PL (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of name

In the article is cited Roberto Pinotti as the co-discoverer of the Vaticinia. After several search and how cited in italian wikipedia version of this topic, Enza Massa was been the only dicsovere of the Vaticinia and Pinotti never do nothing if not publish the news of the discovery! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.252.65.87 (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]