Talk:Voynich manuscript/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Regarding my edits

My edits:

As one advised work is still not cited, I moved it from cited bibliography. User:Tisquesusa said she will use it to cite something in few minutes but did not. /He/she does not understand difference between cited bibliography and literature./
Template {{Aut}} is not safe for use in CS1 templates as it pollutes COinS metadata, so I removed it. /User:Tisquesusa introduced it, too./
Fixed CS1 error for citing web without URL by adding one.
Introduced back two references as they were removed for no reason. URLs are broken but they are properly archived on Wayback. /User:Tisquesusa deleted them./
Fixed date formats for more consistency. Article had been using "month (d)d, yyyy" [not "month, (d)d, yyyy", as I've written in my edit description] date format. /User:Tisquesusa: Why did you introduce "2016-06-08" i.e. ISO "yyyy-mm-dd" format?/
Expanded infobox. Maybe there are some unusual phrases as I am not English language native speaker, so it should be checked.
Moved bare references to {{harvnb}} template so navigation to the cited source is easier. /User:Tisquesusa: Why did you remove pages numbers?/
One more thing: I understood ownership was like this:

? → Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor → Jakub of Tepenec → Georg Baresch → Athanasius Kircher (copies) → Jan Marek Marci (Joannes Marcus Marci) → rector of Charles University in Prague → Athanasius Kircher → Pieter Jan Beckx → Wilfrid Voynich → Ethel Voynich → Anne Nill → Hans Peter Kraus → Yale

There are certain differences when compared to Tisquesusa's timeline, and they should be discussed.

I think I've made some improvement; of course, it can be always improved more. For example, I noticed that names are used inconsistently, that there are wikilinks to redirects etc.

Regarding cited bibliography: I think if a source is cited only once, it should not go to cited bibliography but directly to the reference using <ref></ref>. Am I right? /Example is Shailor; it is used only once as a citation (it is used 14 times but in the same form). So why not to include that same form directly so it is in references section?/

Please refer (if needed to comment) to each numbered item one by one, so it's easier to follow discussion. --Obsuser (talk) 02:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Whatever, destroy the hard work I've done because you care more about autistic bullshit than a good article. The accusation that I do not understand something is hilarious. If there are problems with a certain template, it should be a motive to SOLVE THE PROBLEMS, not to be a slave of technology. {aut} templates are professional and read clearly. Bibliography is every document that is cited AND available for more citations, so even if there's only 1 citation AT THIS MOMENT, it means the source is there in a separate chapter to invite users to quote more from the same source.

It's all useless reverting and all non-important edits. Are the citation neededs solved? I did more than half of them myself. I created two useful templates, the timeline is based on the excellent website of René Zandbergen and 1 correction based on a reliable source (Yale) provided by Jackiespeel.

Don't bother me again with this shit, make of it what you want, I don't care. I care for CONSTRUCTIVE work and good, heavily referenced, well-sourced articles. If you do, then be constructive. If you don't, then take a wikibreak. I have not removed any page numbers and if it was the case in a particular instance it was a typo or something. I have organised all the professional journals and books under Bibliography to separate them from the other webpages (newslinks, "amateur" analysis, etc.). That is professional; sources with more than 1 page can then be referenced per page (if the document is available online, like for example my expansion of the ink, paint and vellum sections).

I know Wikipedia is filled with autistic "guideline" trolls who couldn't care less about someone else's work. Feck off or be constructive, my only and consistent message. Tisquesusa (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

All the ACCESSDATES of the cite templates have the same format YYYY-MM-DD. All the PUBLICATION dates also have the same format but different, on purpose, to reflect the differences between the two dates. Publication dates are Month DD, YYYY, common English format. Tisquesusa (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Using "autistic" as an insult is inappropriate and will probably get you banned if you persist in it. This is not because it's against a "guideline", but because it's uncivil and bigoted.
Removing the conflicting templates was the correct thing to do. In a perfect world those templates would work together. But they don't, and this is a known problem that would be quite difficult to fix.
The restored references both look a bit dubious to me. (voynichcentral.com and hurontaria.baf.cz) They both appear to be personal webpages of no academic or journalistic standing. I think it was correct to remove them.
I have no opinion on the access-by dates. If there's a guideline for their format, I don't know it.
The new info template looks mostly good.
- The "contents" section needs to indicate that we're only guessing at the content. For example, we don't actually know that the book contains any herbology. We just know that a particular section is illustrated by weird plant-like drawings.
- The "illumination" section is awkwardly phrased. Suggestion : "Simple illustrations with crude coloring that was probably added at a later date."
I'll leave the historical timeline discussion to people with more historical knowledge than me. ApLundell (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

See my link in a previous section to a timeline - which can be transferred over/made use of here.

Basically - the VM 'looks like' a manuscript of the early 15th century; the cost of production of such a long text (vellum, inks/colours, at least two scribes etc) may well rule out 'outsider art' , forgeries and similar - and a range of people from trained cryptographers to interested historians (professional and interest) have not been able to 'crack the code' - so possibly some other approach to understanding the document is needed. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Whose work or actually what did I "destroy"?

I can only repeat the most important stuff (alongside: Template {{Aut}} is not safe for use in CS1 templates as it pollutes COinS metadata!; {{Aut}} is not professional; what does it even mean professional?):

All the ACCESSDATES of the cite templates have the same format YYYY-MM-DD. is not true. Date and accessdate parameters should use same style. Before Tisquesusa's edits, it was not "YYYY-MM-DD" but "month DD, YYYY".
Timelines (both Tisquesusa's and mine) should get checked twice or more times...

@ApLundell: I've never seen someone using as much offensive language here as Tisquesusa (to tell someone "you are autistic", I mean – what!?)... But never mind, I'm here to discuss the article and plan to apply suggestions when I find time...--Obsuser (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Or or or...

Is this edit from some IP actually good? I see "Foror or..." too, not "For or or..." (very first characters of the first line). It is not "image above", too. It is on the right, at least on my monitor. --Obsuser (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

According to the FSG transcript, those first two lines are :

POROR,ORSG,TOM,8HTAL,OPTOR8G-
0TOR,OR,ORO,RAM,HZG,0AN,8AR-

So it seems like the edit is correct as far as it goes. But it makes me wonder if that section should very briefly mention which encoding scheme it's using (It kind of implies that those words can be read straight off the manuscript, which it can't.) ApLundell (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Historical context of the VM

Can [1] be made use of or developed. (Noting again that it is a public wiki in which there is currently only one participant.) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:28, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

VOYNICH IS NOT A MANUSCRIPT, IT WAS WRITTEN USING FOUR STENCILS

THIS IS THE ORIGINAL VIDEO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4E3BgWiqtk

AND THIS IS THE ADDENDUM TO ORIGINAL VIDEO EXPLAINING VOYNICH WRITING SYSTEM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF8LVn4HVh4

SOLUTION WAS ALSO PUBLISHED ONTO A NATIONAL ITALIAN NEWSPAPER:

http://www.lastampa.it/2016/04/06/cultura/ho-svelato-la-lingua-segreta-del-manoscritto-voynich-aHO9kOzrDruiEeSBG84wVI/pagina.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.102.162.6 (talk) 06:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is - the text looks 'way too complex' to have been created by stencils (the text is not in blocks) - and having created the stencils why not use them elsewhere? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be a modern variant on William Romaine Newbold's micrography theory. Without going into it at length, I think it fails for the same reason Newbold's theory does : The technology to create the micrography didn't really exist, and the ink/parchment wasn't capable of holding such fine detail anyway. It cracks as it drys.

Who is the creator of this video? Is it based on any peer reviewed research that could be put into the article? It doesn't look like it, but if this new theory is notable, we could add micrography section to the article that compared and contrasted Newbold's theory with this one. (But again, only if this theory has some notability behind it, which it doesn't look like, but I can't be sure because I don't read Italian.)

ApLundell (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Or possibly I'm not understanding videos quite right. They're a little hard to follow. ApLundell (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The case against micrography point (whatever) - would #you, dear reader# wish to 'spend so much time and ruin your eyesight' creating a text of such length? ('Would you, dear reader wish to do X this way' may not be a formal scientific process but eliminates some of the more impractical suggestions). Jackiespeel (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion or exclusion of Thomas O'Neil

@Glrx: and others; the last edits on the article have mostly centered around two works by Thomas O'Neil; his blog (that is automatically deleted by a bot because it's hosted on wordpress, a site on the blacklist) and his book (only available on kindle and just 38 pages "long"). I haven't read the work and indeed it seems the editor adding it looks for promotion, but is there a convincing argument to not include this particular person's analysis of the VMS? I am neutral in this; ok with either decision, but would like to know if it's based on anything to exclude it? Tisquesusa (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE. The issue is prominence of the author and the acceptance of the work. The wordpress piece does not convince me of either. The author is not prominent and the views are not widely held. That's one of the reasons the bot blows away wordpress links. Glrx (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Facsimile multiple reverts

Can some agreement be made on including details of the latest publications - having details added and removed repeatedly does not contribute to Wikipedia. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Why does the article mention only one facsimile? I think it should mention several facsimiles or none at all. The mention of only the French edition reads like an advertisement.Jbc0300 (talk) 11:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The recent Yale/Siloe editions were addressed in #Facsimile edition above. I read that section as a WP:CONSENSUS not to include the material. Obsuser took the pro side claiming the information was valuable; Tiquesusa, ApLundell, and I opposed mention because it sounded more in advertising and did not add any insight into the VM; Jackiespeel asked questions but did not take a position. Even if we view the discussion as not reaching a consensus, there was no consensus to include the recent publication. WP:BRD
After that discussion, WP:SPA Jbc1550 (talk · contribs) comes along and inserts similar material that has no consensus. I revert, but Obsuser (who is aware of above discussion) reverts me. I revert again. Now WP:SPA Jbc0300 (talk · contribs) comes along and repeats the whole affair. Given the similarity between Jbc0300 and Jbc1550 names and their undivided interest in VM, I'd venture that we have a newbie who cannot remember a password or a sockpuppet.
I considered removing reference to the 2005 French facsimile, but it makes a colorable claim to be the first publication of the manuscript. It may be how the manuscript became widely known. If such a link can be made, the 2005 facsimile should be in the article; if the manuscript became widely known through some other channel, then we can remove the reference. Glrx (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Really sorry. I'm a newbie (who did forget pw) and was hoping to get involved starting with an interest in VM. I was going to add a reference to Siloe/Yale editions of facsimile and was confused why it kept disappearing. (sorry again!) Was also thinking of adding a reference to New Haven Symphony Orchestra composition on ms in Cultural Influence section, but perhaps this is all superfluous to discussion. I do think the other works mentioned in Cultural Influence section is what added to popularity. The French publication seems rather obscure and seemed to be one of many that came out after Yale library released high-res scans. Jbc0300 (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I am not against mention being made of the facsimiles - only the constant inclusion and excision of the text. My suggestion above is one possible option (and my interest was more in Voynich himself than the manuscript). Jbc - you are welcome to visit/contribute to the wikis mentioned above. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

So we have Tiquesusa, Nø and Glrx for exclusion, and Jbc, Pablo.alonso (who Glrx forgot), TimBray (who Glrx also forgot), Jmj713 (who Glrx also forgot) and me for inclusion + Jackiespeel who is not against mention + ApLundell (whose arguments don't work at all, and did not have an answer to Jackiespeel's response, and was not clearly opposed). It is 3 for exclusion to 5/6 or even more for inclusion. Maybe not a consensus, but I guess we can find solution somewhere in the middle – it won't be mentioned in the lead, it won't be mentioned in a ten or hundred lines section, but it should be mentioned (or French facsimile should be removed too, because it makes no "colorable claims" but is less known than these new facsimiles [or unknown]; at least, Yale facsimile is not any promotion but very serious analysis from Beinecke man). I don't see any clear arguments why is it less important than French one? It is opposite.

I completely disagree with advertisement arguments because we could declare whole articles on other subjects (some TV shows, toys or upcoming events) also advertisement. Can someone cite any guideline that would point clearly for exclusion of these facsimiles? Would almost 100% exact replica of some 2D art, sculpture or even city be "promotion" or relevant indeed to the "original" (e.g. city) itself, adding value to it and not adding value by any means to itself [replica] because replica itself would not be interesting (actually, would not exist at all) if there was no original? --Obsuser (talk) 02:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm listed above as for exclusion. For the record, all I've said on the matter is an eddit summary saying "Undue weight" as I removed the following from the lead. I'm not opposed to a brief mention in a less prominent place.

In August 2016, it was announced that the Beinecke Library had arranged with Siloé arte y bibliofilia, a Spanish publisher, to publish an edition of 898 facsimile replicas of the manuscript for commercial sale. Yale University Press will publish a trade hardcover edition with essays in November 2016.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nø (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Would something along my suggestion above be appropriate - that WV had the document reproduced and circulated in an attempt to get it translated, and since then there have been a number of facsimiles produced on a commercial basis cover all the points? Delegating an article 'a list of reproductions and facsimiles' to the Voynich wikis with a link thereto might well 'solve' the keep/not keep issue. (This could well be used in other contexts - what is not quite notable enough for WP can be fully within the remit of a specific-interest wiki.) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Your suggestion above sounds in compromise without understanding the objections or recognizing the result of the past discussion. Your suggestions are also separable. I don't see a problem including statements about WV reproducing and circulating the document in an attempt to get it translated if those statement are sourced. The owner of the Beale ciphers did some self-publishing along that line. Such comments would be about the M gaining fame. That would also parallel my comments above wondering if the French facsimile was the first publication. How, exactly, does Yale/Siloe publishing an edition today contribute to our encyclopedic understanding of VM? Did the publication trigger a sudden decipherment? What value is a list of all facsimiles? WP is not intended to be a reservoir of little details. It is not an academic publication, and it is not an extensive bibliography. WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Glrx (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I was writing in a hurry and trying to summarise the discussions (and am so now) - and GLRX there seems to be a word missing.

There are two components - the initial reproductions by Wilfrid Voynich and others - eg those mentioned on [2] and [3]. Then there are the facsimiles such as [4] and [5]. Both should be noted. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Before Voynich reproduced and circulated, others also sent "copies" of sections in attempt to decipher. 1637-39 Georgius Barschius sent copies of pages to Athanasius Kircher. I learned this from the Yale facsimile essays edited by curator at Yale library (one reason I wanted to cite originally). The "modern" facsimiles (including French edition listed) seem to have all come out after the Yale library released high-res scans of all the pages (some of which reproduced in this article). The Yale facsimile says it was produced from new photographs of manuscript and the Siloe publication goes beyond a photographic facsimile... it's an attempt to be a replica (why it's so expensive I imagine).Jbc0300 (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Jackiespeel, it does not help to say "Both should be noted." Why? What WP policies are involved that suggest publication should be mentioned. What intellectual effort is behind a Xerox copy of manuscript? How does mentioning the publication advance the article. On the other hand, transcriptions, especially those due to someone like William F. Friedman are intellectual efforts needed to do modern cryptanalysis. Friedman is a prominent authority on ciphers (he broke the Japanese diplomatic code between the wars), so his views/actions carry weight. It is significant that the VM resisted the efforts of Friedman and the NSA. WP:DUE. For comparison, John Stojko should not be mentioned in this article at all. His theories and translations carry no weight.

If Yale published hi res scans before the French facsimile was published, then that would diminish the weigh of the French facsimile. But there's a question about when and how Yale made those scans available. Publishing scans on an Internet website offers wide circulation; if the scans were just available on the library's internal server, then it is not publishing. Sending copies to other researchers is also not publishing. How did the manuscript enter the public consciousness?

WP doesn't care about new photographs or old photographs or holes in some vellum. WP only cares if reliable sources say the new photographs show significant new details that impact the translation or that the holes in the vellum carry meaning.

There's also a huge difference between using something as a source and touting its characteristics. If one of the essays in the recent Yale book says something significant about the VM, then by all means include the significant statement and cite the book as the source. That's what WP is all about. But don't say that Yale has published a spiffy new book that includes pretty pictures and fabulous essays by X, Y, and Z. That's puffery that adds nothing to our understanding of the VM. Glrx (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Kahn's mention in The Codebreakers 863–872 predates the French manuscript. If VM was not widely known before then, it would be known afterward. That would be where I first learned of it. Glrx (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

So only two users are for complete exclusion, and around seven to mention or full inclusion. Facsimiles other than French one should be mentioned; I will leave to others how and where in the article. --Obsuser (talk) 20:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

So 'mention that both 'early copies by Barschius, Voynich and others' and 'modern facsimiles' exist - and possibly 'the most current/thorough/other relevant definition facsimile is...' (I will fit in with whatever consensus as to wording is reached.) Not mentioning that these versions exist will only result in the 'on again, off again' situation I am complaining about. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Again using the essays in Yale University Press facsimile as a source here-it looks like the Beinecke Library made the high-resolution digital scans available online in 2004. Would it make sense to say: "Early copies of the manuscript were made by Georgius Barschius and Wilfrid Voynich. In 2004 the Beinecke made high-resolution digital scans publicly available online, and several printed facsimiles appeared. In 2016, the Beinecke Library and Yale University Press co-published a facsimile with scholarly essays. The Beinecke also authorized the production of a replica from the Spanish publisher Siloe." It seems significant that the library itself is publishing (with scholarship) and authorizing these two facsimilesJbc0300 (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

'Fine by me' - I was just giving a possible text.

Now to wait for the next presentation and also 'I have translated the following words...' Jackiespeel (talk) 09:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Brief comment: AFAIK Barschius (most probably) cut a few pages from the VM to send them around, but didn't copy them. Likewise, AFAIA Voynich did distribute photostat copies of only some pages, so neither of them copied the book as such. Or am I wrong? -- Syzygy (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

On one level it is a matter of intent - Barschius, Voynich, the codebreakers and others'trying to understand what this strange text actually means' (so 'any paper will do as long as the text is readable') and Yale/Beinecke Library are treating the VM as something to be reproduced as an object. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

On [6] it mentions 'photocopies and photostats' (sometimes of earlier such). Jackiespeel (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Derek Vogt work

I added section that links to work by Derek Vogt: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voynich_manuscript&diff=753017818&oldid=752404530 but it was reverted with this description: "Not notable, unreliable source (youtube)". Derek seems to work with Stephen Bax and publishes on his web page (https://stephenbax.net/?p=1550). As the topic involves phonetics, posting these findings as video makes sense IMO. Please re-evaluate this change. 109.241.147.199 (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed and good argument. Should be included in the article. Tisquesusa (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. I don't think Bax belongs. Several others should be flushed (e.g., Stojko). WP is an encyclopedia; it is not a place for research talks or a place to report dubious results. When Vogt and Bax have published their work in journals and secondary sources have assessed that work, then it can be included. Translating ten words is not a clear accomplishment. If Vogt knows how to attack Voynich, then he or one of his followers should mount that attack and translate large portions of the manuscript sometime soon. Glrx (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem with most of the 'translations' is that they seemingly get no further than a few random words, when the VM appears to be a coherent whole (or 'a grouping together of shorter documents'). Jackiespeel (talk) 11:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a "good argument" is not the point. Self Published web pages do not meet the notability criteria. Even if he's done amazing, one-of-a-kind work, it would not be correct to say so here, until a reputable source like a scholarly journal or news publication reported on it. ApLundell (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Facsimile edition

The comment appears, is removed, is returned, is removed again, and is re-returned... can some agreement be reached please. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Would [7] be a sufficient reference for inclusion? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Remove all reference to the facsimile edition.

@Pablo.alonso:, @Obsuser:, and @TimBray:.

More to the point, do you think it should be mentioned and why?

I removed the notice of the facsimile because it does not add anything about the manuscript. Frankly, the mention sounds in advertising for a small publishing house peddling its expensive copy. The source that Jackiespeel provides has many quotations in it; it looks like a reworked Siloe press release and is therefore neither a reliable nor an independent source.

For comparision, Shakespeare's First Folio was printed around 1622; I have a facsimile of the First Folio put out by Folger Library, but the WP FF article does not mention that facsimile edition. There are expensive facsimile editions of the Gutenberg Bible,[8] but they are not identified in the GB WP article.

Images of the Voynich manuscript are available on line, so what is the big deal with somebody making reproductions? It's not like the publisher is making something available that has been inaccessible for decades.

Glrx (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

These appear to be more detailed than just prints of the scans. I think they're more like recreations of the actual object, like a duplicate movie prop. More an object of art than just a book printing. ApLundell (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment. I mostly agree with Glrx. When the user posted the info, I reworked it into a more neutral wiki style, removed the external link posted in the edit and with the correct citation template, but that was to incorporate the info in the article in a neat manner. But indeed, the info smells of promotion/advertising and does not add much to the encyclopedic value in the article itself. Tisquesusa (talk) 02:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep all reference to the facsimile edition.

@Jackiespeel: Thank you for that. For me – yes.

@Glrx: What about TV shows where we have info on all TV stations that broadcasted particular show (list of stations in article/infobox)? Those TV shows are available online or elsewhere too, and even in cases when they are not – if we would follow your logic – that list of TV stations would be useless as it does not increase indeed value of the show itself.

For a reader or someone who wants to know everything about this manuscript – information about new replicas (he/she probably will not buy them, I mean that pure mentioned information is "satisfactory useful" if not anything else) can be and is valuable, and we can now cite news after Guardian published its article and added more notability/relevance on facsimiles. It is simply information more + it is referenced now with very reliable source (cite news is applicable ref template).

The Guardian source is the Guardian source (reliable); we cite it and we are not interested in exploration of how they collected and presented information.

What about adding info on those facsimiles in articles and proper referencing? Also, Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability can be indirectly applied to your cases.

Would it be important if someone makes 99,99% accurate reproduction of Mona Lisa today, using same painstaking techniques Da Vinci used? There is even article about it.

PS Why only renowned artist's or publisher's work would be worth mentioning? Does Siloe need to make worldwide success in order to get significant enough to be mentioned? Is it way worse than other publishing houses or is simply small and not in New York or London so it is not worth mentioning?--Obsuser (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Obsuser, why do you "always" (the comments I've seen from you at least) need to be such a pain in the ass? Much more important than this 1 edition of the manuscript is to get the article to an A- or GA-class article. As said before, contribute to that and you have all my support. Battling about 1 f*king link to a new edition does nothing to boost the article at all. Better solve the few citation neededs still there and get it up for GA review... Tisquesusa (talk) 02:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Tisquesusa: Why do you swear? There is no need for that.

My decision to involve in discussing facsimile replicas does not affect you; you can still contribute however you want and if you want, as same as me or other editor.

Also, you might check your ownership chronology template as I think it needs revision, as well as other suggestions for correction I've made in previous sections on this talk page. --Obsuser (talk) 03:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Would something along the lines of 'Reproductions of the manuscript have been produced, of which the most recent example is (Siloe, details, 2016) (or perhaps two examples, replacing on an as and when published).' be suitable? (And more detailed descriptions, appropriately presented, can be included on the Voynich wikis should people so desire.) Jackiespeel (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I say it doesn't add any value to the article, and does feel a bit like a plug or advert to me. The analogy to TV shows doesn't work. There's historical value in knowing that Star Trek was originally aired on NBC because that means they paid for it, and probably had some degree of editorial control over it. It's also of encyclopedic value to know that Star Trek is now owned by CBS, because that means they paid a lot of money for it and now control distribution. None of that applies to the VM, which is a public domain work. Wikipedia doesn't list all the publishers who currently print, for example, "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz", because that's not notable and doesn't add anything to the work's history. ApLundell (talk) 10:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between published books, and 'manuscripts reproduced.' It can add value to an article to say 'published book X remains in print'/'(TV or radio) program Y is still regularly transmitted' - with any further detail being relegated to 'the relevant discussion groups/wikis/fanbases etc.' Reproductions of 'manuscripts and other historical objects' is different - there is only one of the original.

Would something along the lines of 'copies of the VM were made at various times, initially by Wilfrid V and others in an attempt to get it deciphered, and, more recently, as a commercial venture' cover the various points? Jackiespeel (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

The constant addition and removal of effectively the same passage in question detracts from the article and is mildly irritating. Would something along the lines of my 'Reproductions...' sentence be a reasonable compromise? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The current issue (February 2017) of the magazine Prospect has a review of the facsimile/article on the VM on page 82. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Slavonic?

Is there any attempt (save for Stojko's freakish 'vowelless Ukranian') to interpret the text as Slavonic? No, I am not a crazy patriot, I have just noticed that some features of VM which are regarded by non-Slavonic speakers as improbable, are quite consistent with 15th-century Russian or Bulgarian: - "too short words": words could be abbreviated; - "absence of one-character or two-character words": there would be little or no such words in a medieval Slavonic text; - diacritics are much like those used in the 15th-century Cyrillic script; - some of the characters are identical with those of the 15th-century Russian secret scripts; unfortunately, the scripts in question do not have a shared system of meanings; - seemingly meaningless word repetition and mentions of fictitious plants are quite normal in Slavonic charms. Okay, I do know, this is a tactless 'original research'. But I just want to know if anyone had done it before. I would be happy to get references.176.15.77.168 (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You might want to present this idea on the Voynich mailing list, http://voynich.net/, where all the "Voynicheros" gather, and are happy to discuss new theories. ;-) AFAIK, your idea is novel, in particular I've never heard about those "15th century Russian secret scripts". If you could shed some insight about that on the VM list, that would be grand! --Syzygy (talk) 08:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I came here because I have a vaguely similar line of reasoning... any bilingual person who can speak basically "unrelated" languages (say, ukranian vs english) can write "phonetically" in one language using the pronunciation rules of the other -- just like romanized japanese. the result is trivial to read+write for the writer yet totally opaque for almost everyone else. add a custom alphabet and it's pretty hard to decode! Mcslinky (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There are also the Voynich wikis on Wikia - reasonable OR welcome. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

"unwritten before the manuscript was created"

"Protein testing in 2014 revealed that the parchment was made from calf skin, and multispectral analysis showed that it was unwritten before the manuscript was created." This seems to mean that multispectral analysis showed that the text didn't exist before it was written on the parchment. Does it mean to say that the first use of the parchment was for this manuscript? i.e. that "unwritten" means "unused"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes it does, the ref says "Multispectral images taken in 2014 equally did not show any signs of earlier writing, so it is certain that the parchment was not previously written upon". I added the word "on" after "unwritten" to clarify this. Herostratus (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks!--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Didn't need to be cracked by Russian Applied Math Institute, since book is not ciphered, just lacks vowels.

https://ria.ru/science/20170419/1492432885.html

http://rbth.com/science_and_tech/2017/04/20/russian-scholars-unlock-the-secret-of-the-mysterious-voynich-manuscript_746881

Article: russian scholars unlock the secret of mysterious Voynich manuscript. Not encrypted, but plain text, allegedly containing 60% English or German and 40% Romance languages, written down after removing all vowels and spaces from the text (similar to hebrew sacred-script style). 82.131.210.163 (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Seemingly yet another "deciphering" that doesn't produce a readable text; just a claim the Russian experts are smarter than CIA and NSA (which they may very well be).--Nø (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yet again, Researchers from the Hard Sciences try their hand at a field they aren't part of and immediately believe they've made a great discovery that actual experts in that field have missed for generations.

That's practically become a cliche. What is it about Math and Physics experts that makes them think they're supremely qualified in all fields?

Suffice it to say that skipping the vowels in a document is common enough in ancient manuscripts that I'm sure people have checked for it. Languages where vowels are correctly not included are called Abjad scripts (As opposed to alphabetic), and when it's an informal usage, it's usually considered a type of shorthand. (Nowadays shorthands are used to save time, but back in the day they were sometimes used to save parchment, which was much more expensive than paper.)

I doubt we'll hear any more about this work. It will fade into obscurity with all the other pop-science articles about people who have "cracked the code" without actually coming up with a translation. Unless it gets a lot more coverage I don't think it's notable enough for inclusion in the article. ApLundell (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

As I have said before - whoever wrote the text wrote it smoothly rather than 'encrypting letter or word by letter or word' (and if they were, there would be more rough drafts floating around, as people have been trying to research/understand the manuscript.

Occam's Razor applies to the VM as anywhere else. Jackiespeel (talk) 18:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Occam's razor suggests avoiding solutions with unevidenced entities. (Such as hitherto unknown languages.)

A no-vowel shorthand is a well documented existing entity. So Occam's razor actually tells in favor of the Russian Mathematician's solution. (It also fits your belief that it was written fluently all at once, since writing fluently is often a characteristic of shorthand.)

However, it seems completely absurd that the mystery could have survived so long with such a childishly simple solution. Especially as it's one of the first things an expert in ancient documents would look for.

ApLundell (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I was arguing against switching between several languages and/or multiple encryptions. Even if the VM was a deliberate one off - why haven't drafts and/or the missing pages turned up? Jackiespeel (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Voynich manuscript. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Solid evidence of forgery by Voynich himself

There is a very thoroughly researched piece that casts very serious doubts on the perception that the manuscript dates from the middle ages. I will post a link to it here: https://proto57.wordpress.com The author debunks basically all the myths used to support a medieval origin, including numerous pictures that bear a striking resemblance to post-colonial era inventions such as the telescope, microscopic images from the early 20th century and so on. The Marci letter (supposedly dated to 1665) also is very likely a forgery by Voynich himself. The very fact that he allegedly purchased the manuscript in 1912 and only showed it to the public 3 year later in 1915 is quite telling. Why would he do that if he was in possession of such a mysterious book? Fairly obvious at this point that he took these couple of years to actually manufacture the manuscript basing it on the authentic Barsch letter (which mentions unknown script to the author and star signs, HOWEVER it omits the naked women, baths, etc). Voynich was a dealer in old manuscrips and had access to old calfskin, old paints, dyes and could have fabricated such a book if he wished to.

What the author in my view proves is that the whole notion that the book was created sometime in the 15th century is based mainly on wishful thinking and people's tendency to gravitate towards mysteries even when there are none, as in this case. I strongly suggest everyone interested in the Voynich so-called "mystery" to read into the link I have given. Granted, it is long and takes some time to read through, but it sheds light to the subject.

Lastly, what I propose is that the date of creation be changed to early 20th century, or at least that such a date be given as a viable alternative to the shaky at best carbon dated date. The carbon dated calfskin only dates the vellum and as mentioned Voynich had access to plenty of old calfskin, which he could have used. mezil (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting read but unfortunately self-published sources like blogs are not considered reliable unless the author is a noted expert or the blog is cited in reliable sources. Otherwise it's just another crackpot writing about his theories and any of us could do the same. As for the date, please provide a reliable, published source (meeting WP:RS) to support what you've written, otherwise it's original research and not allowed. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with mezil, apart from researcher Richard SantaColoma, more people have suggested this possibility. It is listed in the article as a possibility and that's what it should be, not a "definitive proof", that is up to the reader to decide. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That is what I have included it as. An alternative, and it should be stated as such. mezil (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the additions. A wordpress blog is not a valid source. ApLundell (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Correct, there is no debate about this. Blogs violate WP:RS and therefore WP:V which is a policy here. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The medium is not of relevance. Richard SantaColoma has published a lot more, he is not "some random person writing a blog". What counts are his analysis and arguments. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Encyclopedias document current academic consensus, they don't judge new arguments on their merits. The content or quality of his analysis and arguments don't matter to this discussion.

The medium is of relevance. WP Guidelines are clear that blogs are to be mistrusted as third party sources except in exceptional circumstances. ApLundell (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

(ec) It absolutely does matter. Self-published sources are not subject to any editorial oversight, fact-checking, peer review, etc. We can't take your word for it that the author is considered an expert in the field. We'd need reliable, published sources (such as academic papers) citing him as authoritative. In which case, you're correct that his blog may be able to be used in a limited fashion (to cite what he states or believes). Please read WP:SPS. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

If that would be the case, about half of all the references in this article could be removed. The website by Zandbergen is also a personal website, the websites by the other researchers too. This is an exceptional case; due to the interest, most of the researchers are amateurs. Tisquesusa (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I would not be opposed to culling self-published sources from the article, even if that makes it shorter. (Except in cases where they're referencing statements specifically about the self-publisher, which I don't think would apply much in this article.)

It would be work, though. And I fear a number of editors would come out of the woodwork to protect their favorite theories, so it might be like pulling teeth. ApLundell (talk) 17:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Some allowance has to be made for WV running a business which included a significant amount of travelling so 'puzzling out some obscure book' might well have been a hobby - and he probably asked all his contacts first before going public.

And, as has been said 'at various points in the past, by various people in a number of places' - what would he get out of forging a peculiar document of that length, that was one of a kind? 'Creating a few pages that are obviously a construct to get an understanding of medieval manuscripts and have a bit of fun' is one thing - but forging the entire VM is something else (and would probably ruin his reputation as a bookseller). Jackiespeel (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

We're not here to debate the merits of the idea. It doesn't matter if it's good or bad. It especially doesn't matter if you or I think it's good or bad. ApLundell (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, the amateur researcher in question seems to have just personally edited the the article. That makes me even more reluctant to use his blog as a source. ApLundell (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, he has been researching for over a decade. His views have evolved. As Tisquesusa said, he is FAR more than just a blogger. He presents tons of circumstancial evidence that the Voynich is a modern hoax. Why not mention it as a viable option. You reverting is a bit of a bitter move to be fair, but you can continue to do so if you feel like it. mezil (talk) 23:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

The Voynich Manuscript does fall into the category of 'topics inviting original research, theories that are considered more or less valid by others and discussions on both on this talk page' (and sometimes it is useful to discuss the practical reasons for or against).

Further discussion can be continued on the talk page for [9]. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Its a book on Botany.

has anyone else noticed that this is a book on botany and not a weird manuscript as it is being presented — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.219.128 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Manuscript" means a document or book that was written by hand.

Since none of the plants can be identified as real plants, I think "weird manuscript" is a good description. ApLundell (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Zbigniew Banasik

He has a page on Polish Wikipedia - which does not mention the VM. Jackiespeel (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

"Proto57" blog

Do we have a good secondary source that describes Rich SantaColoma's work yet?

It's very irritating that such an in-depth and comprehensive look at the topic can't be used in the article. This is a perennial problem with Fringe topics, of course, and I 100% agree with the WP policies that make this an issue, but I had still hoped that the topic had enough mainstream appeal that we'd at least get some popular press that summarizes the work? But I haven't been able to spot any.

ApLundell (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)