Talk:Voynich manuscript

Another attempt

News from Italy. Scholar Eleonora Matarrese states she has deciphered the manuscript: la Repubblica (quite reliable source).-- Carnby (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

It may be churnalism given how much of that text is an exact copy of similar sites like Adnkronos and iLLibraio. I'm not sure if this is enough to warrant mentioning as a decipherment claim on the article itself, but news articles come out every few years with similar claims and it's just the latest of a very, very long list. - Aoidh (talk) 22:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

And what about this paper [1]? It seems pretty sound and well documented to me. --95.233.177.138 (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

It's from November 2022. If it hasn't made it into reliable secondary (or tertiary) sources by now, it is with high probability because it is fringe, and not a reliable wp:SOURCE. (If it had been new, I'd have said that it with high probability was fringe, and shouldn't be included until it made it into reliable sources -- unless it had created so much of a stir in mainstream media that we should cover that stir (probably without endorsing the theory). Nø (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What I'm seeing online ([2][3][4][5]) marks that publisher as a predatory publisher, and whether that's true or not I don't see any evidence that this paper is in any way peer reviewed or acknowledged in any reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

So only attempts or claims published in a peer-reviewed journal should be mentioned?-- Carnby (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Claims that have been covered by independent reliable sources should be considered as possibly mentioning, but if every claim was mentioned it would be a list hundreds of names long. The Voynich manuscript may be an important part of a scholar's work, but is the scholar's work an important part of what we know of the Voynich manuscript? Routine churnalism isn't evidence that this is the case. - Aoidh (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, It translates more text, in a less far fetched manner, compared to other listed attempts. 2601:14D:4D7E:E80:25A2:6B77:2E81:5814 (talk) 12:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

You agree ... with what? Do you have a valid source for this? Nø (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Multispectral images released

This news from today should probably be covered in the wiki page. https://manuscriptroadtrip.wordpress.com/2024/09/08/multispectral-imaging-and-the-voynich-manuscript/ Makeworldpedia (talk) 03:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Is there more information out there than just the blog entry? --Syzygy (talk) 09:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

There's an article on Ars Technica [6]. For what that's worth. It's less detailed than the blog post, but it might impart a little notability.

It's really remarkable the way some of the marginalia is clearly visible in UV but completely invisible in normal colors. I'm sure these images will fuel generations of more speculation. ApLundell (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

More Cheshire

https://www.academia.edu/35769088/Linguistic_Missing_Links_instruction_in_decrypting_translating_and_transliterating_MS408_the_only_document_known_to_use_both_proto_Romance_language_and_proto_Italic_symbols_for_its_writing_system?email_work_card=title

This paper provides the solution to understanding the hitherto unknown writing system used for the manuscript listed as MS 408 at the Beinecke Library, Yale University. The writing system uses symbols, punctuation, grammar and language that are each unique. The manuscript is not encrypted, in the sense that its author made an effort to conceal the contents of the manuscript, as has been presumed by some scholars. Instead, it is code only in the sense that the modern reader needs to be versed in the calligraphic and linguistic rules to be able to translate and read the texts. Furthermore, in discovering its writing system, it became apparent that the manuscript is of invaluable importance to the study of the evolution of the Romance languages and the scheme of Italic letters and associated punctuation marks now commonplace in those and other modern languages. In short; it is revealed to be the only known document both written in Vulgar Latin, or proto-Romance, and using proto-Italic symbols. The original title for the manuscript, given by its female author, is: What one needs to be sure to acquire for the evils set in one's fate. It is a book offering homeopathic advice and instruction to women of court on matters of the heart, of sexual congress, of reproduction, of motherhood and of the physical and emotional complications that can arise along the way through life. The manuscript has now been dated to the year 1444 and the location of its creation has been pinpointed to the court of Castello Aragonese, on the island of Ischia: as expounded in the companion paper Linguistically Dating and Locating Manuscript MS408: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/003808 Keith Henson (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

But this is just more Cheshire. He has of course solved all of these problems (as of course has Eleonora Matarrese, entirely differently), but until third-party scholars who are actually experts in something confirm that his claims make sense, they do not belong in WP. Incidentally, "homeopathic advice", given centuries before the invention of homeopathy would be identified how, exactly? Imaginatorium (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

homeopathy . . . No idea, ask Cheshire. I think his email is easy to fine, if not ask me. Keith Henson (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

https://www.arteoloji.com/ortacag-akdenizinde-zehirli-bir-bitkinin-tibbi-kullanimi_60

Journal article. Considered a reliable source here? Keith Henson (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I should think not. This appears to be a Turkish journal; Chesire writes his usual stuff about how the document has been decoded (by him, which he fails to mention), and fails to identify the document by the name which would be the warning flag to the people considering whether to publish this, assuming they are actually trying to peer-review the article. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Scott addition

@Nightbadger: In response to this edit summary, the issue isn't gatekeeping information, it's making sure the article has relevant information to this article. The content being added is not supported by reliable sources in any way, and is sourced only to what appears to be a preprint on WP:ACADEMIA.EDU, which has not been peer reviewed and even if it had, needs third-party sources showing relevance before being included in the article. The number of people that have made the same claim as individual number in the hundreds if not thousands, most of which have no relevance to the history of this article's subject. Do you have reliable sources that support this individual's claim being relevant to this article's subject? - Aoidh (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the removal.

There is no third party coverage of this research. The author doesn't appear to be a trained expert in the subject.

ApLundell (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Just a minor point, but it's seemingly not even a preprint, but flatly self-"published" using Academia as a vehicle for promotion/distribution without any indication that the author intends to submit it anywhere for peer-review. –Austronesier (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I'm so used to seeing Adademia.edu being used for pre-prints that I assumed, but you're correct, I don't see any indication that it's even a pre-print. - Aoidh (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I can't find it again, but when I was trying to find if this had been mentioned in any third-party sources, I cam across a blog post (on LinkedIn, I think) that mentioned she intended to submit it to an medievalist academic journal. And she mentions in more than one place that it's "entered peer review."

Of course, that means little on its own, but there does seem to at least be an intent to go through proper academic channels. ApLundell (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Ardıç

So one of the amateurs that has been never been cited in the relevant academic literature about this topic now has gotten more WP attention by adding links mentioning his participation in a conference. To put it bluntly: can anybody tell me why we should devote an entire boldface-headed paragraph to someone whose appearance in secondary sources is limited to a short mention in CNN and a shoutout in the pop-sci e-zine Open Culture? There's more of this sort in the section "Decipherment claims", but we need to start somewhere to remove anything that violates WP:DUE WEIGHT. WP is an encyclopedia. Austronesier (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Ahmet Ardiç has actually been part of a number of conferences in Turkey and Azerbaijan from what I can tell. His Old Turkic theory is one of many theories on the Voynich manuscript and is one that gets brought up a lot on the topic. I see no reason why it should be removed. DA1 (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

We need relevant secondary sources that tell us these things. It's not enough that you have found cues about him attending concerences. At this point, it equals soapboxing. –Austronesier (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Mind elaborating on this WP:SOAPBOX aspect you're referencing? DA1 (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Professor Lisa Fagin Davis is referenced in the WP article multiple times, including disagreeing with the Greg Kondrak theory and the Gerard Cheshire theory. However, on the Ahmet Ardıç theory, she states:

Davis says their claims hold up pretty well so far, although she is eager to hear from an Old Turkic scholar who can vet the family’s work.

“I don’t know the first thing about old Turkish but it’s very intriguing,” she said. “It certainly fits the known history of the manuscript, it suits the contents. When you put the whole thing together, the contents suggest that the manuscript was produced for medicinal purposes.”

Whether or not their theory withstands expert analysis, it’s unlikely to end our obsession with the document.

“I would say the Voynich manuscript stands at the intersection of the middle ages – which is a topic that is really fascinating to the general public – and the unsolvable mystery,” Davis said.

In a lecture at Wellesley College, uploaded to YouTube on 27 November 2023 (at 01:15:11 timestamped), Professor Davis proactively brings up the Ardıç theory:

who believe that they have found a way to turn Voynichese into a Medieval Turkish dialect. That's really kind of interesting. I'm not a hundred percent convinced by what they're doing, but it's really interesting and certainly it fits the, it's possible.

And in my heart what I want it to be, I'll whisper to you what I want it to be, which is that I really want it to have been made by community of women, recording their knowledge for future generations. That's what I really hope it turns out to be.

DA1 (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean, at this point, anything other than the claim than the Voynich manuscript is a constructed language or glossolalia/deliberate gibberish seems pretty fringe. The bizarre repetition exhibited in the text probably suggests that it is the latter, but I don't know what the academic consensus on the Voynich is. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)